31

Suggestions & Concerns / Asking questions about technology

« on: May 02, 2016, 10:00:27 AM »

OK, guys, this is what happens when you ask sincere questions about technology in "Technology, Science & Alt Science" on this forum!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66603.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64277.0
I guarantee you that something similar happens if you ask a sincere question about other sciences or even alternative science.
How do you think we can make that board slightly more useful?

32

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Postfix notation

« on: May 01, 2016, 04:42:12 AM »

I am trying to make my version of Excel that internally uses the RPN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
I managed to make the variables, operator precedence, parentheses and comparators, all in 290 lines. However, then I faced with the problems and gave up. Could you help me?
So, here are problems I noticed:
1) How to convert function names to the RPN? For example, if the user enters in some cell "POW(2+2*(3+1),2)", how do I convert it to " 2 2 3 1 + * + 2 POW"? Like I've said, I've solved the problems with the operator precedence and parentheses, so my program correctly translates "2+2*(3+1)" to "2 2 3 1 + * +". Remember that your algorithm also probably has to deal with the comparators, so "IF(X<Y,Y,X)"->"X Y < Y X IF". My program correctly translates "X<Y" to "X Y <" and "x+(x*y)<10+(x*10)" to "x x y * + 10 x 10 * + <", but incorrectly translates "(5<4)+(0<1)" to "5 4 0 1 + <" (evaluating it as 5.00). I thought the expressions such as the last one are meaningless, but, if you think it's useful to correctly translate them, let's discuss that also.
2) How to make the tokenizer recognize the difference between variable names and the function names?
3) How to translate from the postfix notation to the infix notation? This could be important if someone wants to, for example, edit the expression in some other cell as a string.
My program is written in Objective-C, using Cocoa API. For now, the functions for translating from the infix to the postfix  and for evaluating the postfix are entirely in C because of the portability. But if something is way easier to make in Objective-C (Foundation framework) than in C, we can sacrifice the portability.
Thanks for your help!

33

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Should pastafarians have religious rights?

« on: May 01, 2016, 03:03:06 AM »

One of the main arguments against that is that it's not a real religion, but a parody of religions. However, Bobby Henderson, the famous prophet of pastafarianism, claims that that religion has existed in secrecy for hundreds of years before it came into mainstream. For all we know, that could be true. And, since there are vegetarian spaghetti, I have nothing against people becoming pastafarians. So, what do you think?

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / English is a Slavic language?

« on: May 01, 2016, 01:21:38 AM »

My native language is Croatian, I've studied English and German and English seems to be, in some cases, more similar to Croatian than to German. Here are some words to compare:

English-Croatian-German
be-biti-sein
stand (verb)-stati-stehen
water-voda-wasser
two-dva-zwei
three-tri-drei
seven-sedam-sieben
twenty-dvadeset (pronounced dwah-yeest)-zwanzig
am (1st person singular present of to be)-sam-bin
us (pronoun)-nas-uns
me (pronoun)-me-mich
mother-mater (archaic)-mutter
brother-brat-bruder
sister-sestra-schwester
rather (adverb)-radije-lieber
first-prvi-zuerst
grave-grob-grab
no-ne-nein
yes-je (3rd person singular present of biti)-ja
sun-sunce-sonne
tree-drvo-baum
day-dan-tag
night-noc-nacht
boat-brod-boot
home-dom-heim
live-ziv-leben
eat-jesti-essen
cow-krava-kuh

The correspondence seems to be even systematical: f in English corresponds to p in Croatian, th in English corresponds to t in Croatian, t in English corresponds to d in Croatian, i in English corresponds to e in Croatian (nine-devet, six-sest, five-pet), and so on.
Maybe some of the words I've listed don't share the same root, but just sound very similar.
As for the grammar, English is, for example, more similar to Croatian than to German in the way it creates the interrogative sentences. The verb do might correspond to the Croatian interrogative particle "Da li" (in the beginning of a sentence).
The definite article "the" may correspond to the Croatian demonstrative pronoun "ti" (these).
The indefinite articles "an" and "a" may correspond to the Croatian pronoun "jedan" (usually translated as "one").
I am not a professional linguist, and I don't have the knowledge or skills needed to evaluate my hypothesis, so, what are your thoughts on this?

35

Flat Earth Q&A / The curvature of the sky

« on: April 18, 2016, 10:20:45 AM »

I posted this one in the debate section, but you ignored it.
If the sky is parallel with the flat earth, why does it appear curved and why does it appear that the highest point in the sky is always right above you? I mean, a flat ceiling doesn't appear curved no matter how big a room is.

36

Flat Earth Q&A / Ships disappearing bottom first

« on: April 18, 2016, 10:13:50 AM »

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

37

Flat Earth Debate / Ships disappearing bottom first

« on: April 18, 2016, 10:09:39 AM »

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

38

Flat Earth Debate / Sky and perspective

« on: April 16, 2016, 08:22:04 AM »

Does the perspective explain why the sky appears curved and why the apparently highest point in the sky is always directly above you? I mean, a flat ceiling doesn't appear curved no matter how big a room is.
And how then can you use the "Look out through the window!" argument?

39

Flat Earth Debate / High Altitude Photographs

« on: April 16, 2016, 01:52:21 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=High+Altitude+Photographs
Well, suppose a camera is directly bellow a lightbulb (the Sun). Now, is it true that it can't see anything that isn't illuminated by that lightbulb? Nonsense. If you want to find out whether some line of reasoning is correct, just put it in a different context.
You should expect to see the street lights in the night.
And if the curve of the Earth really were the separator between the day and the night, it would appear reddish (sunrise and sunset).
And once there is no atmospheric "refraction" to hide the half of the stars not visible from the point on the ground directly bellow the camera, they should all be visible at the horizon and make a fat white line there.
And the curve is elliptical because, well, the Earth isn't a perfect sphere.
I simply don't get how can you let that bunch of nonsense stay on your Wiki. Or maybe you just want to deceive the idiots like I was.

40

Flat Earth Debate / Why the Lunar Eclipse is Red

« on: April 16, 2016, 01:32:42 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Why+the+Lunar+Eclipse+is+Red
"The globular earth is said have a circumference of 24,900 miles while the atmosphere is said to extend only 100 miles around it. If the RE model were true, and the redness of the shadow was caused by the sun's light filtering through the earths atmosphere, then the earth's shadow upon the moon would only have a slight sliver of red around the shadow's edges."
What the hell are they talking about? Farther the object is, the greater is the area the light illuminates. And the Earths atmosphere, that disperses the light, is 400000 km away from the Moon, and no image is created on the Moon. Suppose you tried to project an image of a red ring using a projector in a dark room and that the large plane it is projected on is much farther than the image is. What do you expect to see on a screen? Of course it will be entirely reddish.

41

Flat Earth Debate / Moon Transparency

« on: April 16, 2016, 12:38:23 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Moon+Transparency&highlight=transparent%20moon
What an example of intellectual dishonesty. The explanation is known by the modern-day astronomy, it is called the moon fountains. And they can only be explained if you assume that the Moon is very big, and not as small as Flat Earth Theory claims.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/30mar_moonfountains/
And I am pretty certain that the guy who wrote that on the Flat Earth Wiki knew about that and lied.
And this why I, as a former Flat Earther, feel so insulted.

42

Flat Earth Debate / Ships disappearing bottom first

« on: April 16, 2016, 12:18:08 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20horizon
That makes no sense whatsoever. When I was a Flat Earther, I accepted that explanation without five minutes of thinking. The obvious flaw is hidden by the confusing diagrams and language.
Let me explain: when you look at the apparently sinking ship from a higher altitude, the visual angle of the bottom of the ship is even smaller than it was when you were on a smaller altitude because you are then farther away from that ship, yet the bottom of the ship still reappears.
As for the telescopes, look, the refraction is an explanation for the described observation, but the Earth being flat isn't!
And the waves also aren't an explanation for ships disappearing at all: the waves are bellow your eye level, but the tops of the ships are above it and the waves can't hide the entire ship!
As for the electromagnetic accelerator bending the light upwards, that would make the ships disappear the top first and not the bottom first.
Hey, do you have a bright idea how insulted I, as a former Flat Earther, feel now?

43

Flat Earth Debate / Images of stars

« on: April 15, 2016, 11:59:43 PM »

You know, back when I was a Flat Earther, I trusted you on blind faith that you have some model of how refraction could explain the apparent constant shape of the constellations. When I tried to spread Flat Earthism on other forums, I realized just how stupid I was to believe you. They made a very good point by asking me where the hell should the images of the stars be then.
So, let's start with the Polaris. So, from the North Pole, it should be visible right at 90 degrees. And from 3333 km from the north pole (at 30 degrees of latitude), it should be visible at 60 degrees. From 5000 km (at 45 degrees of latitude), it should be visible at 45 degrees. From 6666 km (at 60 degrees of latitude), it should be visible at 30 degrees. And from 10000 km (at the Equator), it should be visible right at the horizon. Try drawing a diagram. Where should the image of Polaris be? Nowhere! And the same goes with other stars.
jroa knows that he is lying, yet he continues doing that. Don't tell me that the distances are wrong, from no finite distance should something above your eye level be visible at the zero angle. That would mean that the equator is infinitely distant from the north pole, and it certainly isn't.
And of course I am angry and insulted by your lies.

44

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Spreading flat-earthism in the real-world.

« on: February 23, 2016, 02:07:01 PM »

You know, apart from being a FE-er, I am also an atheist and a vegan. But of all the beliefs I have, I find FET by far the hardest to spread. Here is some of my experience for you to learn from. How do you think I should've responded in each conversation?

1)Me: (Some random proof of FET)
Random RE-er: Why should I trust you? You are not a scientist!
Me: Look, I realize nobody knows everything. But can't you at least try to reach the truth with what you do know?!
Random RE-er: I think I would do much better if I asked an actual scientist.

2) Random RE-er: How then the Earth appears curved from an airplane?
Me: Simply it doesn't. It shouldn't even if the Earth were round. Look, the windows of the airplanes have to be curved because of aerodynamics. And when you look from a curved window, everything appears curved. By the way, I don't believe in airplanes either. I have never seen one, and I have no bright idea how they could be made.
Random RE-er: But I have been in an airplane! If I weren't, how would I get here?
Me: I don't owe you that answer. You could "prove" dragons or tele porters exactly the same way. If you want me to believe in airplanes, better prove that they exist.
Random RE-er: What?! You don't trust me?! Then we aren't friends any more!

3) Random RE-er: Hey, do you suffer from pathological denialism? I mean, you believe that nothing exists except the farms where they torture animals.

4) Random RE-er: Oh, come on! I know you are not serious! You won the school physics competition!

5) Random RE-er: You are a FE-er just because you want to be different. Every teenager wants!

6) Random RE-er: If you want me to believe that the ISS is a part of the conspiracy, prove that!
Me: Look, the burden of proof is definitely on you. However, I think that this is a special case where I can. How the hell would you sustain the atmospheric pressure when the g is zero and p=rho*g*h?
Random RE-er: Why don't you take a manometer to an anti-gravity chamber, do an experiment to prove that, and win a nobel prize?
Me: Anti-gravity chambers exist only in sci-fi movies. Besides, manometers wouldn't even work on zero-g. How could they?
Random RE-er: What? You make a hypothesis you don't know how to test and expect me to trust it? And not even being a scientist? You are the most arrogant person I've even met! We aren't friends any more!

7) Random RE-er: God is real! (or some other blind assertion)
Me: Start claiming that the Earth is flat so that I might take you seriously!
Random RE-er: Then everyone would consider me crazy, just like they consider you now! Maybe you like that, but I certainly wouldn't!

Random RE-er: So, how then would the GPS work?!
Me: The GPS satellites may simply be natural celestial bodies that happen to emit the current time in the manner that can be decoded electronically.
Random RE-er: So, what about those whom we pay to sustain those satellites?
Me: Well, they are fraud. They just collect money by making us believe that they sustain those satellites, when, in reality, they, just like us, have no bright idea how do they work.
Random RE-er: So, you believe that we shouldn't pay anyone to sustain the satellites? Well, thank God you don't have any political power!

9) Random RE-er: You are a FE-er just so that you can defend atheism better! Well, guess what, you are still going to end up in hell!

10) Random RE-er: If the Earth really was flat, why would you have to talk with your supporters in English? I mean, come on, who is more likely to be correct: a few hundred FE-ers, or billions of RE-ers?

11) Random RE-er: How then the ships disappear bottom first?
Me: First of all, waves hide the bottom of the ship first as the ship goes farther and farther. Secondly, if there are literally no waves, like on some big lakes, when the ship disappears, you can restore it by looking at it with a telescope. That's then just a perspective effect!
Random RE-er: And who do you think invented a telescope? A FE-er or a RE-er? Shame on you! You are trying to use science to destroy the science you use!

12) Random RE-er: You have studied the FET? That simply means you have no better job to do!

13) Random RE-er: Wow! And you are an excellent student?! That just proves how bad our education system is.

14) Random RE-er: That (me being a FE-er) just shows the biggest fault of our schools. They teach you to think in terms of the laws of physics instead of the laws of nature. And the law of nature is that the majority (or the older members of the society, or scientists…) is right!

15) Me: But the FET is falsifiable. Take a high altitude photograph with a very long exposure time and compare the shapes of constellations. If they are the same as if looked from the ground, congratulations. You have proven that the stars aren't 3100 miles away and that, therefore, the Earth has to be round.
Random RE-er: Wow! Do you honestly believe nobody has done that before? If you do, then, sorry to tell you, but you are insane!

16) Random RE-er: Why do you think the NASA would trick us into believing that the Earth is round?
Me: Because, if the Earth is round, the other planets are something like the Earth and are worth exploring. If the Earth is flat, they aren't. So, if they  delude us that the Earth is round, they can collect money for the space exploration.
Random RE-er: Are you suggesting that we shouldn't give money for the space exploration!? You are anti-science!

17) Random RE-er: Asking for a proof that the Earth is round is like asking for a proof that 2+2=4. If you yourself don't believe it, that means you are not educated enough to argue.

18) Random RE-er: Look, I don't care about the shape of the Earth. I care only about the real life. And the shape of the Earth is too abstract for me to think about.

19) Random RE-er: Look, I know that, while I am in school, I am going to get a bad mark if I claim that the Earth is flat, no matter how much I tried to defend it. So, why should I even bother?

20) Random RE-er: You believe what you want, but science is the only authority.
Me: I think that our senses are the only authority. Let me explain: when we talk about the reality, what we actually mean is the world our senses give us access to.
Random RE-er: Aha, so you claim that just because you are not blind, you should see as much as any scientist? That's the most arrogant statement I've ever heard.

I hope this is enough to explain what I am dealing with.
I want only the responses from other FE-ers.

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Veganism

« on: February 10, 2016, 08:51:40 AM »

I am a FE-er, and I am also a vegan. And I think everyone should go vegan. Here are my reasons for it:
1. Nobody has yet proven that human beings have to eat meat to be healthy. This also applies to children and teenagers (I am 16). To me, as a FE-er, that is a very good argument.
2. Contrary to popular belief, it has never been proven that a vegan diet increases the risk of ANY illness. Just do some research on, let's say, Wikipedia about Vitamin B deficiency, Vitamin D deficiency, anaemia… Many people believe that it does, but it's been countless times proven otherwise.
3. As everyone knows, eating meat has been proven to increase the risk of many diseases. And that's much more than most of the people expect. Food you eat often affect your body more than medications you take. This goes for the vast majority of heart diseases, cancers, but also the risk of the diseases even doctors wouldn't expect to, like osteoporosis and some mental illnesses.
4. The explanations they have for how a vegan diet decreases the risk of getting those diseases make much more sense than the explanations for how they could increase. For instance, the explanation that vegans give for the increasing rate of osteoporosis is that too much protein from meat is turned by the pepsin in the stomach to amino-acids that decrease the PH of blood to a level that makes blood dissolve minerals from bones. This makes a lot more sense to me than the explanation in my biology textbook that the sexual hormones somehow cause the change in the bone structure, considering that the metabolism of bone cells is regulated by the thyroid.
5. Animal sentience can be proven using only your senses. Most of the animals won't attack you if you are nice to them. They will only attack you if they consider themselves a food. That means animals don't want to be eaten. You don't observe that in plants or mushrooms. I understand that animals eat other animals, but, unless proven otherwise, we, humans, don't have to.
6. Contrary to popular belief (although not contrary to common sense) factory farms generally don't use anesthetics. They only use antibiotics, and they use them for their own gain. So, there is no way we could make the lives of farmed animals worse if we don't give money to the farms. (If we don't buy meat).
7.Contrary to popular belief, farmed animals generally live SHORTER than wild animals. Cows are, for example, slaughtered at the age of 5, while they could live 20 years (only a quarter)! Yes, it does free them of their suffering, but also of all the pleasures in their lives! I don't think that anyone would argue that humans should be killed at the age of, let's say, 20 (a quarter of what a human being could live). So, not only is the quality of life of an animal reduced if it is farmed, the quantity is reduced also!
8. Workers in a slaughterhouse are more likely to be mentally ill than anyone else is!
9. 90% of global soy production and 70% of global crop production is used to feed those animals, while we don't even have enough food for ourselves! So, don't use the world famines as an argument against veganism. Also, even if everyone going vegan would in fact make MILLIONS of people die, it still wouldn't matter. There are BILLIONS of people who would benefit from that (even if you are going to disregard animals).
10. Cow's milk is the number one cause of allergies in the world. It also may be the primary cause of some mental illnesses (do some Wikipedia research!).
11. Contrary to popular belief (although not contrary to common sense) cows have to be repeatedly impregnated to produce milk. And this is done using machines. Let me explain: unlike humans, oxen don't have to be sexually aroused (to have an erection) to ejaculate. So, to make a cow produce milk, they rape an ox and a cow using those machines, and then take their child away when it's only a few days old! Imagine if that's been done to humans!!!
12. Similar things happen to chicken in factory farms. Male chickens are killed as soon as possible!
13. Contrary to popular belief, eggs are neither safe (germs), neither a good source of protein (although it's a good source of dangerous low saturated fats), neither are chickens treated humanely (they are usually kept in overcrowded conditions, even if there are no wires!).
14. Contrary to popular belief, the meat, dairy and egg industry cause by far the most pollution. And it is easy to explain how! Actually, environmental arguments for veganism are so convincing that I think the majority of FE-ers would be convinced.
15. They catch much more fish than they sale! In fact, unless people stop eating fish, you could expect fish less oceans by the year 2050!
16. Contrary to popular belief (but not contrary to common sense), most of the caught fishes die slow and painful death of suffocation!
17. I think that even a fish (that probably doesn't have many pleasures in its life) values its life way more than we value its meat!
18. Contrary to popular belief (but not contrary to common sense), animal experimentation doesn't give any useful medical data. Penicillin, for example, in most of the rodents used in the animal experimentation causes a deadly allergic reaction. In fact, many useful medications would be rejected if tested only on animals!
19. Most of the meat is tasty only because of vegan spices in it. So, if you add those same spice to, let's say, soy, you won't notice any difference.
20. The statement that animals being less intelligent than humans makes their lives less valuable makes no sense. Nobody would argue that we should have the right to kill infants because of their lack of intelligence. And pigs are way more intelligent than them. Also, someone could argue that computers already are more intelligent than humans (they can solve mathematical problems probably impossible for any human to solve). Does that mean computers are more valuable than humans? Of course not. We shouldn't exploit any sentient being, and you can see the animal sentience with your senses.
21. Relating to that, you could also argue that a life of a bee is more valuable than human life. Without bees, every eco-system would collapse. The same is not true for humans. So, what gives us the right to exploit bees by stealing their honey they would use to feed their children?
22. Anecdotal evidence for the health benefits of non-vegan diets don't matter! The fact that there are very old meat-eaters simply means that, at the time and place they were born, there were no vegans to begin with! If they were, the basic logic suggests, they would live even longer and be even healthier!
23. The fact that most of the people in most of the cultures don't care about food animals doesn't prove that they are not sentient. Claiming that it does is begging the question fallacy.
24. An average meat-eater eats 5000 animals during his lifetime. That's how many lives, according to the law of supply and demand, it takes. That's more than the majority of serial killers!
25. A conclusion from all above: If there were only one sentence we could pass on to the next generation, that would be: "Don't exploit anything that tries to defend itself!"

So, what arguments do you have against veganism? Can you refute ANY of my arguments? If not, then, go vegan! Stop paying the destruction of animals, environment, and, most importantly, the health of majority.

46

Flat Earth Debate / Full moon (as a FE believer)

« on: February 04, 2016, 12:46:25 AM »

This is a question for both FE-ers and RE-ers who claim that the moon gets its light from the sun. You claim that exactly one half of the moon is illuminated, and one isn't, correct? Well, then, what about the time when we see exactly that part (and we always see exactly one half, correct?) of the moon that is illuminated by the Sun? Yes, where does the Moon get its light during the full moon? Right from the Earth? How would the sunlight go through the Earth to get to the Moon, be reflected, and then come right back to the Earth, but so that we see only the light reflected from the moon, and not one bellow us (that comes right from the Earth bellow us)? Shouldn't we always see a lunar eclipse instead of the full moon? Obviously, the Earth exactly between the Sun and the Moon doesn't stop the Moon from shining.
If I wasn't clear enough, let me rephrase that: When we see the illuminated part of the Moon right above us, shouldn't the Sun be right bellow us? If so, we (the Earth) would stop the sunlight from even reaching the Moon. And if you (probably some FE-ers) would say that the Sun is always above us, during the full moon, it would have to be between us and the Moon, so we wouldn't even see the Moon to begin with.
If you still don't understand what I am saying, make an experiment with two different balls  (the Earth and the Moon) and a battery lamp (the Sun). Can you make exactly that part of the smaller ball illuminated that is visible from the bigger ball (that half of the smaller ball that "looks" exactly to the bigger one)? Unless the bigger one is transparent (and the Earth clearly isn't) or you put the battery light between the bigger and the smaller one (and the Sun is at least slightly bigger than the Moon, so it would hide it from the Earth), you can't. How then can you claim that the full moon is possible if the Moon gets its light from the Sun?
And an analogous experiment (using the floor instead of a bigger ball) would explain why is the Moon reflecting light from the Sun (during the full moon) impossible even on the FE: the Sun has to be higher than the Moon (how else are the solar eclipses possible?), so the battery lamp (being higher or at the same altitude as the ball) is able to illuminate the half of that half of the ball that is visible from the floor at most. (Of course, that ball would also have to be in the air.)
Unless you can explain that, the notion of the moon reflecting light from the sun is a complete nonsense.
And now, I guess you would ask how does the moon emit light. Well, I don't know. And, honestly, I don't even care. You don't need to know the right answer to recognize a wrong one (that the moon gets its light from the sun).
But, I would suggest other flat earthers to make one up. We would probably convince more people if we show them that we at least have one possible explanation for the moon phases.
I would suggest that we explain lunar eclipses as the shadow object hiding the moon and, unless someone comes out with a better explanation for the moon phases, that exactly one part of the Moon emits light, but that the Moon rotates in some weird way. As for the spots on the Moon, it might be that the Moon is covered with something semi-transparent that doesn't rotate with it (that there is some space between that semi-transparent layer and the Moon itself).
Seriously, there are a lots of obvious questions about the FET that are unanswerable if you assume that the Moon gets its light from the Sun. Just one example:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63330.msg1677502#msg1677502
And for a long time, that was my justification for believing that the Earth is round.
So, jroa, when someone asks how does the Moon work, explain him that the Moon getting its light from the Sun is impossible regardless of the shape of the Earth.
And, RE-ers, try to prove me wrong. I don't think you can. Don't attack me because I am not an astronomer, simply explain where did I make a mistake.
 :-)

Sorry for being so wordy, but we REALLY need to make this clear.

47

Flat Earth Debate / GPS (as a flat earth believer)

« on: January 28, 2016, 05:24:39 AM »

Here is my question: how do you (RE-ers who use that argument) know that GPS satellites are not natural celestial objects (some invisible, very slow-moving "star"). Let me explain: What we call GPS satellites actually don't respond to any queries sent from the consumer devices. They only tell the time (in some very cryptical manner) that GPS devices can decipher. So, GPS devices compute the distance from them to the "satellites" using the time it took the radio-waves to travel that distance, and compute their location using some complicated maths (and, counter-intuitively, this is possible if they get the current time from a few "satellites").
I realize that this begs the question of how the "clocks" stay synchronized. Well, number one, they don't really have to be. Like I've said, they send some very cryptical information, that is, each of them "communicates" the time differently, and GPS devices can recognize which "satellite" it is and decrypt that. So, this is like asking how the stars, the sun and the moon stay synchronized. That is simply how the laws of nature work.
Second counter-argument might be, well, that this is essentially a conspiracy theory. Well, the reason companies don't want to admit that they don't actually control those satellites is probably money they get from the government to "sustain satellites". And since GPS devices have been on the market, nobody decided to shut down the system just to show that they can (And I am not claiming this is a proof, just merely an explanation. I know that, if the earth is round, they would really have reasons not to do that).
The third counter-argument is probably that I have no explanation for how do those stars that emit radio-waves based on the time work. Well, you are essentially falling into the same trap that creationists do. Just because we can't explain how something works or was formed naturally, doesn't mean it was created.

So, go ahead, discuss my theory.

48

Flat Earth Q&A / Street lights on high altitude photographs

« on: January 12, 2016, 06:24:03 AM »

Why aren't street lights from other continents visible on the hight altitude photographs? Let me explain: the Flat Earth Wiki claims that the reason we can't see outside of the light ellipse(?) is because it is night outside. Also, how come would the horizon of the camera (at the eyeline) be apparently farther than the horizon of the Sun if the camera is bellow it?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=High+Altitude+Photographs
(Disclaimer: I have never taken a high altitude photograph and I don't know where the Sun is in relation to the camera on this photos. But I don't think that explains any of those things.)

EDIT:
I recently became a FEr (doesn't mean I won't become a REr again). I know that there are other explanations for these photos than that on The Flat Earth Wiki (imperfections of photographic lenses, as most of the FE youtubers claim ). I had wanted to know whether this alternative explanation (possibly more convincing) is wrong or simply incomplete, and I thought this forum would be a right place to ask. So, other FE-ers, why don't you answer me?

(And if it is wrong, change it!)

49

Suggestions & Concerns / Blank home page.

« on: December 30, 2015, 03:09:38 AM »

When I try to open http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ it is blank. Can you please try to solve this? I am in Croatia, and I have tried to access it using multiple devices, but failed. Also, what about Flat Earth podcastes?

50

Flat Earth Q&A / Waterfalls

« on: December 15, 2015, 04:50:26 AM »

According to the RE theory of gravity, the water on the bottom of the waterfall should be somewhat warmer than the water on the top that is about to fall. So, I have three questions related to that:
1. Do you even believe that that is the case (as far as I know, nobody actually bothered to do an experiment)?
2. If so, how does the flat earth theory explain that? That is, does it account for the gravitational energy? I think the earths acceleration doesn't explain that because then the water that is gaining energy is the water already on the bottom and not the falling water (because it is not actually accelerating), and since the water on the bottom doesn't change its velocity when it is hit by drops, it can't become warmer (that would violate the law of conservation of energy). Correct me if I am wrong.
3. If the earth is constantly accelerating upward, how does the temperature of it stay the same? Shouldn't it become colder and colder because the temperature is turning to the kinetic energy?

51

Flat Earth General / How many stars?

« on: September 18, 2015, 12:32:19 AM »

Do you think that all the newly discovered stars (using telescopes) are a part of a conspiracy?

52

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Disassemblers

« on: August 15, 2015, 03:12:03 AM »

Why do different debuggers show different disassembly for the same executable? I am not talking only about syntax. For example, I've compiled a "Hello world" program on my MacAir with Clang. Then, lldb in Terminal showed me that the first few assembler directives are for setting up a stack, but FreeDOS debug in DosBox showed me that the first directive was "IRET", and that is for exiting the interrupt. Of course, when I then tried to run a program in lldb it printed "Hello world!", and when I tried to run that same program in FreeDOS debugger, the DosBox crashed. To me, that is weird because I know that both llvm assembler and FreeDOS assembler can make programs for the same processor architecture: x86. And even if the interrupt table is different in DOS and Darwin OS, the disassembly should be equal, right? So, how is this result possible?

53

Flat Earth Q&A / What is light?

« on: July 20, 2015, 07:06:58 AM »

Do the weird light-related effects like electromagnetic acceleration, aetheric winds or unexplained refractions have natural or supernatural origin? And what do you think is light? I ask this because you seem to imply that the light behaves differently up in the sky and here.

54

Flat Earth Q&A / Moon phases and electromagnetic accelerator

« on: April 05, 2015, 11:56:22 AM »

OK, Pongo, I am going to create a separate thread for this question:
If electromagnetic accelerator allways pushes light upward and sets the "vanishing point" (what Round Earthers call horizon) to be a few kilometers from the observer, how come the sunlight ever reaches the moon?
Let me be clearer: on the Flat Earth World, moon should sometimes be above the other side of the FE than the sun.
So, how far is the horizon up in the sky and why? I think that no theory that claims that the Moon emits its own light would ever pass the Occams Razor because the theory that the Moon reflects the sunlight easily explains moon phases and eclipses.

EDIT:
Hey, what's wrong now, Pongo? Why won't you answer me? You dismiss a lot of questions with "the electromagnetic accelerator is an appropriate explanation", but when someone asks you a question about how does this "electromagnetic accelerator" even work, you are not able to give a respond?

55

Flat Earth Q&A / Non-linear path of light

« on: December 25, 2014, 05:23:29 AM »

Hi, it has been a while since I posted last time on this forum and this is probably my last question. On virtually every topic on this board some flat-earther questions the linear path of light. However, evidences of straight path of electro-magnetic waves are observable in every-day life. Namely, we can observe it simply by measuring shadows of some big non-transparent objects (eg. buildings, bridges, moon during eclipse...). Also, the functions of radars, GPS satellites, and almost every device that uses electromagnetic radiation depend on it. How do you explain them?

56

Flat Earth Q&A / Platonic year

« on: November 19, 2014, 05:28:29 AM »

According to the article about stars on the Flat Earth Wiki, stars have to move in perfect circles around the north pole because that is the only way to keep the system in balance. However,  it is observed that stars change their position in the sky, and RE explains that as an effect of axial precession. How does the FET explain that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Effects

57

Flat Earth Q&A / International Space Station

« on: October 04, 2014, 06:56:47 AM »

Astronauts at the ISS are weightless because of centrifugal force from the rotation around the Earth, and not because of their altitude. The illusion of the centrifugal force cannot be caused by aetheric wind from stars simply because they are 3100 miles up in the sky, and the ISS is less than 300 miles. You can claim that ISS is a part of conspiracy, but you cannot claim the same for thousands of artificial satellites relying on the centrifugal force.
Try to give me some explanation of weightlessness of astronauts (and artificial satellites) in the space.

58

Flat Earth Q&A / A biblical anecdote

« on: September 06, 2014, 07:41:38 AM »

Does the official Flat Earth Theory allow all the kingdoms in the world be seen from an exceedingly high mountain? (Matthew 4 : 8 )

59

Flat Earth Q&A / How many stars?

« on: September 01, 2014, 04:00:23 AM »

How many stars are there in the Flat Earth World?
Let me explain: There are only 5200 stars visible from the Earth to naked eye, but 60 billion stars are visible using telescope. And, yes, they change as you go north or south from the equator, but they can not all be 3100 miles  up in the sky, or can they?

60

Flat Earth Q&A / Solar Eclipses

« on: August 13, 2014, 04:35:57 AM »

According to the Flat Earth Theory, Sun and the Moon are approximately 3000 miles up in the sky. If it were true, solar eclipses would happen at the same time on the whole Earth (and that never happens).
Explain that.