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 6 ... 14
91
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Spherical Excess"
« on: May 06, 2013, 05:17:45 AM »
The real question for me is... how on Earth did you fight the boredom all the way through to chapter 14?

This is a vain attempt at twisting evidence against your claim into evidence for it. As a general principle, repeating the measurements several times is better, not worse, than making them just once or twice.

And the analysis of several sets of measurements is a lot more complicated than "many measurements... that's bad". Repeating the measurements under a variety of circumstances is exactly what a good scientist does. If he shows the complete set of results, and not only those that support his conclusions, he is giving other scientists a good sense of how solid the conclusions are.

Also, you have to take into account that repeating the experiment takes care of some kinds of experimental error, but not all kinds. A good scientist gives as much information as possible so any of his colleagues can find sources of error that he did not see.

What Rowbotham does is the total opposite. He does not give us the details or the results of the measurements he criticizes. He does not analyze the possible sources of error, either systematic or not. He does not give us even a hint of the circumstances or the design of the experiment. He just criticizes the fact that the scientists did their due diligence and repeated the experiment several times, hoping that his audience is ignorant.

I don't care whether the experiment Rowbotham describes was in fact done, or whether it was done right, or if the results indicated a curvature or no curvature. What I can tell you is that Rowbotham is no source at all for scientific data.

92
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: May 05, 2013, 10:01:30 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.

93
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: May 03, 2013, 10:47:14 AM »
Sorry, but you backed the wrong horse. Because of the limitations of the GPS receiver, it is impossible to determine the distance to the transmitter with a precision better than some 2 meters. Divide that by the sine of, say, 0.1 degrees, and you have 2/0.0017 = 1146 meters.

You're going to have to clarify how you arrived at those calculations. GPS calculations are carried out via triangulation of coordinates between a large set of satellites, I mean towers; often 5 or more. I also don't see how sensitivity to height would be any less of an issue with satellites, remember that we don't have to assume that all towers are at the same height, so sensitivity to low angles isn't necessary.
Any amount of towers you have will most probably be far away and will not be a lot higher than your own position. If you had, for example, a tower that is more than 10 degrees above your horizon, you would see it as easily as you see the clouds. Therefore the towers have to be just above your horizon. By contrast, satellites will sometimes be high up in the sky, and with the correct conditions you will see them, just as so many people have.

Towers just cannot be both invisible and higher than the highest buildings in your area. To say you can triangulate using towers that are low enough to not be seen by everybody, and get all three coordinates of your position is to deny that the whole GPS system has some error. Therefore, whatever the GPS system is, we can clearly say what it is not: a system based on towers that are less than a mile high.

If there is a global conspiracy then it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that they are using existing mobile tower infrastructure, so you could have relatively significant angles of inclination because those towers are so densely distributed.
So densely distributed in the most densely populated cities. In open plains there are not nearly enough. But even in the densest cities you rarely see an antenna that is at an apparent altitude of more than 10 degrees or so from your location. You could get a very imprecise and inconsistent altitude reading, even in New York. Remember, people get accurate readings everywhere in the world, except from the inside of large buildings. Even if you find a few places on Earth where the Celular antennas could double up as GPS transmitters, the vast majority of the world would have a totally unreliable GPS altitude reading.

In fact, I am close to the densest array of Celular antennas in my whole country, and the apparent altitude of the highest antenna I can find is less than 5 degrees. Not enough to fool my GPS.

94
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 28, 2013, 02:14:49 PM »
Sorry, but you backed the wrong horse. Because of the limitations of the GPS receiver, it is impossible to determine the distance to the transmitter with a precision better than some 2 meters. Divide that by the sine of, say, 0.1 degrees, and you have 2/0.0017 = 1146 meters.

You're going to have to clarify how you arrived at those calculations. GPS calculations are carried out via triangulation of coordinates between a large set of satellites, I mean towers; often 5 or more. I also don't see how sensitivity to height would be any less of an issue with satellites, remember that we don't have to assume that all towers are at the same height, so sensitivity to low angles isn't necessary.
Any amount of towers you have will most probably be far away and will not be a lot higher than your own position. If you had, for example, a tower that is more than 10 degrees above your horizon, you would see it as easily as you see the clouds. Therefore the towers have to be just above your horizon. By contrast, satellites will sometimes be high up in the sky, and with the correct conditions you will see them, just as so many people have.

Towers just cannot be both invisible and higher than the highest buildings in your area. To say you can triangulate using towers that are low enough to not be seen by everybody, and get all three coordinates of your position is to deny that the whole GPS system has some error. Therefore, whatever the GPS system is, we can clearly say what it is not: a system based on towers that are less than a mile high.

95
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 20, 2013, 09:25:39 PM »
Why wouldn't there be enough resolution?

I'm with Tom on this I think. As far as I can tell if the planet were flat and assuming bendy light was not responsible for the effects of curvature (in which case GPS signals would conceivably not reach you if far enough away) then it should be possible to discern altitude accurately with a horizontal set of towers.

Vertical movement would create a difference in signal travel distance proportional to the arcsin of the height. Given that GPS satellites are at extremely high altitudes (over 20,000 km I think, is this correct??) I doubt that they would be able to discern higher resolutions than towers on a flat earth.

Of course all of this runs counter to bendy light theory, which would inhibit the functioning of GPS unless we assume that "bendyness" does not affect GPS signal.
Sorry, but you backed the wrong horse. Because of the limitations of the GPS receiver, it is impossible to determine the distance to the transmitter with a precision better than some 2 meters. Divide that by the sine of, say, 0.1 degrees, and you have 2/0.0017 = 1146 meters.

You could calculate the height of the receiver, but the error would be on the order of kilometers. The error would be so bad that, in effect, there is no use for the result at all.

You need at least one of the GPS satellites to be above 30 degrees or so above the horizon to get a good reading of your altitude. And as you say this is not even getting into the quagmire of bendy everything. The towers would be easy to see with your unaided eyes.

96
Oh, airlines are definitely in on it. Flying people shorter distances than they think they are going and paying for is a real money spinner. Most air travel is in the Northern hemiplane and my goodness its lucrative.

If Thork is to be trusted, we get to add all significant commercial airlines to our list, as apparently they're in on it too.
In fact, we get to add all significant commercial airlines to the list of stupid religious nuts who fly people in new versions of the Concorde for the price of a regular commercial non-supersonic flight. only to make people believe the Earth is round.

97
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« on: April 20, 2013, 08:51:16 AM »

Nobody can work for some time making this animation and still believe in a flat Earth. It is so blatantly inconsistent with the everyday experiences of just about every human being that the only thing you can do is laugh at the author.

Here you are showing the pattern of day and night during an Equinox but in no place on Earth there is 12 hours of daylight and 12 of nighttime. There is not even a coarse approximation to reality.

And the apparent position of the Sun on the sky is wrong for just about every possible observer on Earth, at every time of the day.

We know that you do not have an FE model (that is, a means to predict things based on current knowledge) but this is ridiculous. You are not even trying.

98
Imagine a boat on a lake. The wind blows the sails. Now imagine a sailor stood behind the sails. Does the wind also blow him? No, because he is shielded from the wind the same way as we are shielded by the earth from UA. Before you decide on a semantic debate about sails and wind, a tactic in sailing races is to 'steal' the wind of other competitors, ie get in the way of their wind.
I really cannot accept that you are as stupid as your own comments seem to suggest. Get on a boat and make your own observations, or even better, accept that you are a lot more intelligent than this and look for another analogy.

Wind is everywhere. On both sides of the sail, over the deck, around the hull. Your oversimplification of the subject is so overwhelmingly vast that you just cannot do it with a straight face.

99
And don't forget the astronomers. They are millions, and live in every place on Earth except the poles. Almost every one is independent from NASA, and millions are not even members of a scientific society. They would have to be in on the Conspiracy because the alternative is that they all are ignorant fools.

100
He tries to prove, that only Riemann's geometry is real, because it is the only geometry, where infinities do not occur.
Astounding revelation! Thank you, Homesick Martian, for an insight into your most something mathematical mind!!!

Reality is not a subject for Mathematics. Every area in Mathematics creates its own "reality" when a set of axioms (an axiomatic system) is defined. You do not care if anything you do in Mathematics is similar to anything "real" (like something you can detect with your senses). Some axiomatic systems use finite sets of "numbers", some use infinite sets. Some even use sets of numbers that transcend the "infinite" set of Natural Numbers. None of them are "real" and none of them are "unreal".

The application of mathematical concepts to the "real world" is one subject of Science, not Mathematics. Only a scientist or at least a human being, makes the jump from the "one" concept to "one apple".

101
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'll take the bait...
« on: April 03, 2013, 06:07:18 AM »
I understand the premise, and it makes sense, but I don't understand how you conclude that the earth must orbit the sun. Why can't a spherical sun function in FET?

It could. The observation only concludes that the sun is rotating with respect to the earth, and that the observable universe appears also to be rotating about the earth with the same period. The inference that the earth is therefore orbiting the sun is drawn from a logic akin to Occum's Razor. It is not irrefutable based on the experiment I have suggested, but of the geocentric (or flat earth) and heliocentric models it is with the least number of further assumptions that we are able to explain observable heavenly phenomena using a heliocentric, round earth model.

It is by this or an analogous method that all proofs are made. Even simple conclusions such as looking at an apple and concluding that it is thus are based on a least-assumptions model.

My argument at this point would be that if our entire world view is preposited on a certain methodology of reasoning (that which is formalised as the scientific method), we should demand overwhelming evidence to allow ourselves to diverge from such a method. FE theory is unable to provide such evidence and should therefore be disregarded on the current quality of its merits.
No, it could not if you take into account all the information we have about the Sun.

First, the sunspots are seen in the same apparent place on the Sun, no matter from where on Earth you look at them. If the FE "model" were true, the sunspots would be seen in different places from different places on Earth. Alternatively, you would see the sunspots moving all over the Sun during any given day.

Second, no matter how many bendy stupidity you want to embrace, the Sun will move from a distance of about 3000 miles from you to some 12000 miles from you every day from noon til an hour or so before dusk. Either its size, or its luminosity or both would change during the afternoon. If you bend light more, then the luminosity suffers. If you make the borders of the Sun more luminous than the center, you will see this from the Earth. No matter how you try to fix this, some other problem arises.

Finally, Occam's Razor is only useful when you have two theories that predict or explain the same phenomena. In this case the the FE "theories" do not predict a single thing right, so you cannot even use Occam's Razor. Real science wins so big that comparing both "theories" is not even possible.

102
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Energy output of the Sun
« on: March 29, 2013, 02:01:43 AM »
why are we not all dying of skin cancer and why are the oceans not boiling?

You're assuming that the sun needs to output as much energy as it does in RET to heat the earth. Since it's much closer, it can output much less.

My point/claim is that, if (according to FET) the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and only 3000 miles away, and if it consists of reactive hydrogen, the energy output would still be much higher than what we observe/feel. Remember that since the energy would expand/dissipate in three dimensions, it would be inversely proportional to the square of the distance (like "gravity"), so 9.3x10^7 miles vs 3x10^3 miles, distance is 3.1x10^4 farther in RET, heat would be more than 9x10^8 more direct (I admit I might be doing some "creative" math here, but as far as dimensionless ratios go, it's a fair assessment). Now for the size itself, diameter ratio would be 8.6x10^5 miles (RET) to 3.2x10^1 miles (FET), so let's approximate it to be roughly 2.5x10^4, volume of a sphere is cubic, so that makes the RET sun 1.6x10^13 more voluminous. Although, I suppose what is really important is the mass of hydrogen, which AFAIK needs to be above a critical density in order for it to ignite and sustain the fusion reaction (shit I remember from an astronomy elective years ago). So perhaps we can't say for sure how the energy of a much smaller (in volume, at least) but much closer sun would compare, but it seems to be another point that needs to be thought through. At least so you can come up with some pseudoscience to address the differences.
I think there is a much simpler point. At noon the Sun is just 3000 miles away from you. At mid-afternoon it is already more than 12000 miles away. That means that all the types of radiation, including heat, light, gamma rays and more, should be at least 16 times weaker. But that is not what we know to be true. You can take photos with the same settings of speed and aperture on your camera at noon and at mid afternoon. You can get sunburn at noon and at mid afternoon.You just can't make this "theory" match everyday observations.

103
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: March 24, 2013, 08:47:00 AM »
Quote
You used the equation to fill in intermediate points in the path. The path is not fully derivated from the equation because you started with assumptions that the equation does not provide.
That's my point, this does not happen yet the equation makes it look like it would.

No, your initial assumptions are what produces the nonsensical results. How many times do I need to spell this out?


If you do not like BollyBill's assumptions, then why don't you give yours? The very assumption that a cubic formula, of which the Bishop Constant is just the constant of the cubic part, is, as far as I know, nonsensical. And you have not given even a single argument to the contrary.

If you want to even claim some kind of sense in the cubic formula with the Bishop constant then you have to show it yourself.

104
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: March 24, 2013, 07:38:36 AM »


Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.

It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.

If the Bishop constant is constant - and I also don't understand why the OP doesn't keep it as such - rays emitted from the sun indeed wouldn't cross. That was not clear to me in my previous post.

The problem is that you have several constraints on the problem you are trying to solve. The "constant" must be always constant, the observed apparent position of the Sun must match the value that comes from the formula, the height of the Sun above the flat Earth must remain constant, among other things.

You can set any group of constraints except one and find if that one holds. For example, you can set all the other constraints except for the one about the height of the Sun, and check whether the calculated height is always 3000 miles. Or, as Bollybill did, you can set all the constraints except for the one about the Bishop Constant, and check whether the supposed constant varies.

The fact that the supposed "constant" varies does not mean that Bollybill varied it on purpose. It means that in a wrong model at least one assumption always fails.

105
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: March 24, 2013, 07:16:21 AM »
So, if "Universally received" means three people, then it is an axiom of human society that I should be "King of Humanity and All the Lower Species".

"Universally received" within a domain means that it is universally received within that domain. If your domain is "bendy light theory", then the requirement is that it be universally received within the domain of bendy light theory. If your domain is "human society", then the requirement is that it be universally received within all of human society.

This is the debate section of the forum. In order to produce meaningful debate, there is an expectation that you have some basic working knowledge of fundamental concepts, such as definitions of words. I will not be providing any more explanations of simple concepts for your benefit; if you would like clarification on such things, please use a more appropriate forum to request information.

Then, by Parsifal's definition, every claim ever made is an axiom because it is held true among those who hold it true. Nothing else can be said about Parsifal's understanding of axioms. No, you do not get to define the domain for your axiom anyway you like. The domain is all people who show any interest at all in the subject.

But wait a minute. "universally received" in the context of this discussion would, at the very least, include the three FE believers who hold bendy light true and Bollybill, who even calculated the value of the constant, only to find at least two values for it. Therefore among the four of you who are interested in the Bishop Constant there are only 3/4 who still accept it as a constant. "Universally received" does no longer apply to this "axiom".

The word "axiom" refers to a lot more than what Parsifal wants it to refer. So much so that in Science nothing is held as an axiom.

106
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: March 23, 2013, 07:17:58 PM »
Axioms exist in Mathematics, not in Science.

Incorrect. From Wiktionary:

"An established principle in some artistic practice or science that is universally received."


So, the third definition in Wiktionary is the best you can do? Can't you even get a real scientist to define what an axiom is for the world of science?

But, even if we accept that there are some scientists who think that axioms are theoretically applicable to science, (and that is a huge if) you will never find a single scientific organization of any importance that postulates a single claim as an axiom. No respectable scientist in any field of science has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that there is a higher grade of scientifically accepted knowledge than the theory.

And now, if we want to say that the Bishop constant is even related to some kind of axiom, we cannot even make that relationship with the definition in Wiktionary. There is no universal reception of the idea of a flat Earth. Even in the community of flat Earthers (all ten of them) there is no universal reception of the idea of bendy light. And even among the three or so members who accept the existence of bendy light there is no universal reception of a single thing about the Bishop Constant, except for its existence. So, if "Universally received" means three people, then it is an axiom of human society that I should be "King of Humanity and All the Lower Species".

107
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: March 22, 2013, 09:10:37 AM »
You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.

The Bishop constant being a constant is an axiom of bendy light theory. That is how it is defined. You cannot "prove" a definition.


Axioms exist in Mathematics, not in Science. And the claim made when the Bishop constant was defined was that there is a constant that, if placed in the cubic formula proposed, would make the calculations from the formula match real life observations.

The claim has never even been completed, since nobody has declared a value for this supposed constant. The claim itself has been invalidated by its own proponents by their reluctance to even make a complete claim.

So, the Bishop Constant is not even a constant, not even a working concept. It is just a tantrum.

108
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A whole new world
« on: March 22, 2013, 08:52:10 AM »
There is nothing very "exo" of planets that are also 3000 miles away, don't you think? The very concept of exo-planets is attached to the real universe, not to "FE".
Well, I didn't call them exo-planets in that sense. I was referring to what the OP called exo-planets.
What the OP and real science calls exo-planets are planets that at some points of their orbits are moving many thousands of kilometers per hour towards Earth. If exo-planets exist that are distinguishable by their effect on the redshift of the star they orbit (that is, real exo-planets discovered by real astronomers) they would travel the 3000 miles from the "star layer" to Earth in fractions of a second and crash against Earth.

You cannot explain a single thing on the subject of Astronomy. In fact, the "FE" theories of this forum are thousands of years behind Babylonian astronomers of 3000 years ago. 

109
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: March 22, 2013, 08:16:21 AM »
The rays of light are viewed from different points, and so I solved the constant after putting in the x's. How else would it work?

It works by being constant.

You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.

On the other hand, Whovian found a correct value for the amount that light bends on Earth due to factors other than refraction. We can declare this problem solved once and forever.

110
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cult of Gravity
« on: March 22, 2013, 07:46:23 AM »
I'm sorry, but you don't get to say that the existence of gravity means that the Earth must be pulled into a sphere if there are exceptions to the rule.  Would you disagree if I asserted that the known existence of one or two exceptions (lower average mass, much lower total mass) means that there are probably other exceptions that we haven't discovered yet?
Yet another attempt at cheap philosophy instead of working with numbers. Your only argument works around the use of words like "must", which implies that matter has free will if you do not understand metaphors.

Just do the actual maths of the problem and you will see that almost any type and shape of solid matter we know will not be static if you have enough of it. For example, take 1x1022 kg (the mass of Pluto) of the best steel on Earth and make a perfectly straight bar, of just a square kilometer of cross section, and calculate the strain on the middle section due to gravity. You will find that it is enough strain to deform the bar, and eventually it will crumble approximately into a sphere.

I have seen someplace in this forum this kind of calculations, and I am not particularly interested in repeating the maths because I do not believe you will even look at it, or maybe even understand it if you try. Find one of the instances in which the calculations have been made in this forum, if you are interested.

111
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A whole new world
« on: March 21, 2013, 01:31:34 PM »
I agree with my observation of the celestial dome and celestial gears. I don't see how so-called "exo-planets" supposedly invalidate these concepts. I'm no professional biologist, but I've witnessed things just as intricate through a microscope in biology classes I've taken in high school and college. At least those things are observable and repeatable rather than standing at a distance and making wild claims about things that can never be disproved.

As a side note, I always wondered about people who have been seen as genius by predicting things that they could not see and would obviously not be proven or disproven in their lifetime.

All celestial objects would be at a height of 3000 miles or so, even the exo-planets, galaxies, quasars, etc.

There is nothing very "exo" of planets that are also 3000 miles away, don't you think? The very concept of exo-planets is attached to the real universe, not to "FE".

112
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: March 19, 2013, 06:33:48 AM »
β=362,902
β=922,175

Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.

That is just the point. The Bishop constant is no constant at all. It depends on where you are and where the Sun is. In the end you need intelligent air to get the idea of bendy light to work.

But of course I might be wrong and you can tell us, once and for all, the value of the Bishop constant. If it exists at all (as a constant, at least) it is pretty straightforward to calculate.

113
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites don't exist?
« on: March 19, 2013, 04:43:31 AM »
That is my point.  It doesn't make sense for it too come up over the horizon in the NE, rise 65 degrees, then drop straight down and go below the horizon at the same place it came from.
It does not make sense because it comes from your very own head, and from no other place or person. Or maybe from another part of your body???

We have already explained to you that the ISS never dropped straight down to the same place where it came from. This is what I challenge you to say you saw with a straight face. You can only see it honestly if stoned.

The ISS probably came up over the horizon in the SW or nearby, too dim to see with almost any telescope because it was in the Earth's shadow, then became visible when around 65 degrees above the NE and reached the horizon on the NE. Or maybe the route was the other way around.

The day you see anything in the sky come up over the horizon and drop under the horizon at the same place, make sure you make a video and you are not stoned. You just might have seen good evidence of an alien spaceship.

114
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A whole new world
« on: March 19, 2013, 04:25:41 AM »
Anyway, I have no reason to believe they are anything other than what astronomers claim they are.
...
and don't really even see what the problem is.
The problem is that most of those planets are even bigger than Jupiter, and are orbiting around stars even bigger than the Sun, and they are away tens or hundreds of light years, and as immediate consequence all the stars and galaxies in the sky are huge celestial bodies tens or hundreds or thousands or... millions/billions L/Y away, and the Sun too is 150 millions km away... and all that is absolutely incompatible with a flat Earth.

Not necessarily. There's no reason distant celestial objects cannot be just that.
There is a huge reason in FE "theory" to have all celestial objects at the same height as the Sun and Moon. Otherwise we would see them in the same direction from any place on Earth. The very simple observation that shows that stars are not in the same place in the sky from every place on Earth is the very reason that the flat Earth theorists placed celestial objects just a few thousand kilometers up.

115
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites don't exist?
« on: March 18, 2013, 07:58:59 PM »
No it's always their but once it enters the earths shadow it's no longer visible because its not reflecting light. The times and directions to look shown are not orbital tracks they are the portions of the orbital track it is visible.

That is odd.  Every time that I have observed the "ISS", it rose above the horizon and then set below the horizon.  Are you saying now that it just shows up leaves according to a shadow?  Would you please provide some evidence to this claim?
Either you have a humongous telescope, like the one at Mount Palomar or something, or you are totally confused, or you are just plain lying.

A satellite crossing the shadow of the Earth is dark that I am not even sure a world-class telescope can see it with the light reflected by the moon.

The whole idea of this exercise is to have you FE'ers off your butts and making an observation by yourselves. Any evidence I might get will be dismissed as the workings of the Conspiracy. I cannot imagine a single object you might have seen going from horizon to horizon, not even a so-called shooting star, so I am pretty sure you are just lying. But please tell me any reason to take you seriously.

116
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites don't exist?
« on: March 18, 2013, 07:46:49 PM »
Perhaps you could post a screen shoot with this information on it?

This is the kind of information that NASA sends to those subscribed.
Quote
Time: Mon Mar 11 4:47 AM, Visible: 2 min, Max Height: 46 degrees, Appears: N, Disappears: NNE

Notice how they do not say "sets" anywhere. It says "appears" and "disappears". Generally the ISS appears on the horizon and disappears when it enters the Earth's shadow, or the other way around. I really don't know if jroa is making an honest mistake when he says that NASA told him the station would appear and disappear in the same place, or if he just tried to throw a curve ball at us.

Are you saying that it just appears and disappears out of nowhere?

Should it not come over the horizon, cross the sky, and the set below the horizon in a different place, assuming that the Earth is round, or course?
The words "out of nowhere" are all yours. Of course the ISS comes over the horizon, crosses the sky and then sets below the horizon. But only for a small part of this trajectory will you have the ISS illuminated by the Sun and you will be at night. Otherwise you would see the ISS almost daily.

117
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites don't exist?
« on: March 17, 2013, 05:03:23 AM »
Perhaps you could post a screen shoot with this information on it?

This is the kind of information that NASA sends to those subscribed.
Quote
Time: Mon Mar 11 4:47 AM, Visible: 2 min, Max Height: 46 degrees, Appears: N, Disappears: NNE

Notice how they do not say "sets" anywhere. It says "appears" and "disappears". Generally the ISS appears on the horizon and disappears when it enters the Earth's shadow, or the other way around. I really don't know if jroa is making an honest mistake when he says that NASA told him the station would appear and disappear in the same place, or if he just tried to throw a curve ball at us.

118
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I can disprove FET with a stick.
« on: March 17, 2013, 03:04:25 AM »
So, all the celestial object stuff aside, is anyone going to apply the method I put forth at the beginning, without deliberately misinterpreting it like Thork did? It can be used to test for FE or RE, as it is an unbiased method based on geometry, not on any particular earth shape. You will need to travel fair distances though, as making your measurements too close together would give inconclusive results.

Navigators have done essentially the same as you are proposing for centuries now, and they have arrived at the simple fact that every time they move 60 nautical miles North all the apparent positions of all the celestial bodies move one degree South, no matter what their initial latitude was. This result is totally consistent with a spherical Earth, and since it has been repeated millions of times through these last four or five centuries since sextants have been available, and these measurements have been validated with other navigation methods, like dead reckoning, for example.

Now that we know that your experiment will be successful even before doing it, lets remember that FET has no explanation whatsoever for the simple fact that celestial objects move one degree for every 60 nautical miles you move North or South.

119
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I can disprove FET with a stick.
« on: March 17, 2013, 02:45:57 AM »
Okey thork with that model (lol) show me where in the sky on September 24 2043 mars will appear in the sky?
A round earth model can't do it either. And the reason for that is 3 body mathematics is beyond us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

Your knowledge of maths and science is appalling.

This is quite appalling, indeed. None other than Thork is questioning the knowledge of Maths and Science of Pythagoras, or just about anyone, for that matter.

Here and in lots of other places you can find how the unsolved problem is not finding solutions to the Three Body Problem, it is to find analytic solutions to the problem. Non-analytic solutions have been found and studied for a long time now.

Lots and lots of analytic approximations to this problem have been found. In particular, the problem of three masses where the first is much greater than the second and the second is much larger than the third has been solved analytically with great precision. The perturbations that are not possible to calculate through the analytic equations in this case are small and cyclical.

Now, with the use of computers, we do not need the analytic solutions to the differential equations of the Three Body Problem to get very accurate simulations.

But since we are in the subject of predictions of the apparent position of celestial objects, lets remember that none of the "models" of FET can predict the azimuth of any celestial object whatsoever at the time it is near the horizon, with a precision better than 20 degrees. In some cases, not even with an imprecision of 60 degrees. That is orders of magnitude worse than what the Babylonians or Mayans could. The FET "models" are, in fact, at least three millenniums behind current human knowledge. The FET models are even a lot worse than the Babylonians' flat Earth model.

And we have seen the same photograph of a watch so many times it is now boring. Thork cannot even show a second photograph of the watch, or any claim by the maker that this watch has anything to do with anything flat (or anything round, for that matter). A photograph is not a model. A photograph is not even a claim.

120
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mountains
« on: March 16, 2013, 11:26:03 AM »
Is the plane going to change the angular diameter of the mountains? ???
Everybody is trying to explain to you that the angular diameter of the mountains is not the issue. For that you can use a telescope. Opacity of the atmosphere just does not work the way you want. This is all just a rhetorical argument based on word games and not on science.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14