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 - Salviati

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Day and night on a flat earth
« on: September 27, 2013, 09:12:32 AM »
It is rather simply to explain this I believe. Check out James' post about the Details of the Sun's orbit
Wait a moment, this guy James is that one in telepathic contact with the queen of the moonshrimps?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: September 15, 2013, 02:49:30 AM »
The disgust that sceptimatic shows towards waves traveling through a vacuum is just the tantrum of a lazy ignorant who wants the Universe to care about him and his tantrums.
IMO scepti is merrily taking the piss. No lifeform above jellyfishes can believe all those wild ravings.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: September 05, 2013, 02:51:57 PM »
Give me just "one" piece of hard verifiable evidence that anyone can do to prove a rotating globe, that undeniably can prove it to anyone, no matter what their beliefs are.
The rotation of the sky around both North and South celestial poles.
No explanation possible except we are on a spinning globe.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just curious...
« on: June 29, 2013, 07:03:40 AM »

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just curious...
« on: June 29, 2013, 06:54:35 AM »
    "If they don't tell you you're crazy, you're not doing something worthwhile" - Peter Eisenberger, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University

IF "they don't tell you you're crazy" THEN "you're not doing something worthwhile"

This is a syllogism in the form IF... THEN.

From it you can logically infer this one:

IF "you are doing something worthwhile" THEN "they tell you you're crazy"

but you CAN'T infer:

IF "they tell you you're crazy" THEN "you are doing something worthwhile"

Implicitly you did a mistake called "to negate the antecedent". You didn't say it explicitly, but your mistake is evident from the citation.

In other words, if someone tells a fe'er (s)he is crazy, well, it is because one that believes the sun is 3.000 miles high is really insane.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What fundamental error does the RET have?
« on: May 23, 2013, 05:28:06 AM »
Sorry for that. I just wanted to add a little bit more to the explanation, namely the portion about the sun's reflection. I did not mean to step on toes!

Okay, no problem. The usual misunderstanding  :)

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What fundamental error does the RET have?
« on: May 23, 2013, 04:49:31 AM »
The unlit portion of the moon during non-ecliptic phases of the moon is shaded because the sun's light does not hit it, it is not the Earth's shadow.

This is exactly what i wrote!

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What fundamental error does the RET have?
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:49:08 AM »
I proved this myself this evening. There is a tiny spot on the moon - if you look at the moon as the face of a clock - between about 7 and 8 o'clock - you can see a tiny portion of the moon that is shaded by the earth's shadow when you look at the "Full Moon" with a telescope or binoculars. But it's the closest thing that there is in the phases of the moon that is a "Full Moon."

You simply saw a lunar phase, not an eclipse. But you are mistaken only by a couple of days; in date 25 May 2013 at 04,10 UTC there will be a very shallow penumbral lunar eclipse, the moon will skim over the earth's shadow.

You can see live images from LandSat satellite in:

(requires Java).

Some info about LandSat:

They send images of the Earth from space since 1972.

Strangely enough, no one of the many researchers involved in (citation):

...agriculture, cartography, geology, forestry, regional planning, surveillance and education

ever realized that those images are faked and LandSat satellites don't exist.

I think you'll find that the batteries are replaced daily, which is why we have night.
This is a very clever observation, but i admit a tormenting thought crosses my mind since scepti did teach us that the sun is electric.

Okay, the sun is electric, but where is the extension?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides
« on: April 18, 2013, 04:39:39 PM »
Galileo believed that water 'sloshed' about earth's surface.
Galileo's explanation of tides was wrong.

A satisfying theory of tides got achieved only after Newton's laws of motion and, for example, Laplace's Celestial Mechanics.

Flat Earth General / Re: If I fired a laser at a metal ball...
« on: April 18, 2013, 10:38:10 AM »
Unless you h ave heard of a light cone, it is not something you would assume, so your remark is pretty unfair.  If you want to condemn someone, make sure you are right.
I can confirm what i said. The laser becomes a cone. I did read about this fact some time ago, and it's confirmed in the Wikipedia article.

Flat Earth General / Re: If I fired a laser at a metal ball...
« on: April 18, 2013, 10:24:59 AM »
The laser widens out noticeably after a 384,000 Km trip, when it reaches the moon it's some Km in diameter. After hitting the mirror (that isn't the mirror we have in our bathrooms, it got designed specifically for this job) it widens even more, so no need of those complicated calculations. It is sufficient a very sensible light collector and sensor aimed at the moon.

Only a dumb one as scepti can think the laser starts from Earth thin as a pencil and returns to Earth still as much thin.

What is the max distance the eye can see? 
The max distance the human eye can see is 2.5 millions light-years. Andromeda Galaxy is visible with naked eye (albeit not easily) and it is at that distance.

The Lounge / Re: F.E.S. lightbulb joke contest.
« on: April 08, 2013, 04:19:08 PM »
Q: How many John Davis does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One, but first he reinvents the lightbulb.

The Lounge / Re: F.E.S. lightbulb joke contest.
« on: April 08, 2013, 10:46:55 AM »
Q:  How many NASA technicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A:  Seventy, and they plan it for two weeks and when they finally get around to it the weather's bad so they postpone it till next week. The lightbulb costs 3 million dollars.

(Not mine, i found it)

The Lounge / F.E.S. lightbulb joke contest.
« on: April 08, 2013, 08:21:42 AM »
The jokes should be in the form:
How many Fe'ers / Re'ers (or something else) does it take to change a lightbulb?

This is mine:

How many Fe'ers does it take to change a lightbulb?
No one. They change only bendy lightbulbs.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« on: April 07, 2013, 11:40:19 AM »
Maybe it isn't proof but it's equally not proof of anything that you or anyone else says is it.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
This is a masterpiece!

Oh, so you've decided to have the '2' as a denominator on its own. I think this shows how flawed the OP's equation is and how silly shmeggley looks leaping to its defence purely because it mentions the earth is round and he likes that as a concept.
Better if you go to hoe potato fields  ;D

That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second)

(300,000 Km/sec x 2.55sec)/2 = 382,500 Km

Of course i'm not going to use those barbarian imperial measures.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: April 06, 2013, 06:39:51 AM »
I would suggest that bendy light isn't disproven, it just isn't as well researched and developed as some might want you to think.
This statement is totally wrong. Nobody researches bendy light per se, because this would mean that light's bending is taken for grant. Scientists study light, period. If it bends or not we will see eventually. Light is a natural phenomenon studied from centuries and decidedly it doesn't bend in the sense flat earthers want us to believe. It bends only in certain circumstances: refraction trough different substances with different refraction index or presence of gravitational lenses.

The fun thing is that light coming from celestial bodies bends the other way around respect to bogus "bendy light": it makes stars, sun or moon and stuff to be slighty higher on the horizon, not lower. It is called atmospheric refraction and it is well documented and demonstrated. This is science, baby, and you can't do anything about it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Point 1 to Point 2
« on: April 05, 2013, 08:20:16 AM »
On every Flat Earth map I have seen, the equator is a straight line.  If you are follow, how do you derive any sort of circular pathway?
There are two F.E. maps:

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS's social media butterfly
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:11:06 AM »
Those pictures are marvellous!
I daresay they look real.

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS's social media butterfly
« on: April 05, 2013, 02:30:02 AM »
Yes, here's Chris Hadfields supposed excellent don;t nobody get any ideas that these are very good paintings ok, because these are master Hadfields amazing camera masterpieces.
I bet you all thought he was just an Astronaut and musician didn't you.

Now remember, these aren't PAINTINGS...OK  ;)
That guy Alan Brown, Chesterfield, United Kingdom are you?

Flat Earth General / Re: Experiment in space
« on: April 04, 2013, 05:20:50 PM »
How long do you suppose it took to create those effects for the movie? Weeks? Months?

Now how many of those videos do you suppose NASA produces in a DAY during a mission? In far greater detail than what you posted? NASA's budget may be big, but seriously? Is such a feat even technically possible? It would be easier and cheaper to film it - IN SPACE!
Consider that the amazing effects we see in movies are a post-production, they are added after the movie got filmed, no way to make them live, and in many clips from ISS the astronauts speak live with the control center.

Fe'er: "How do you know they speak live?"
Often the control center is visited by tourists and even pupils of the schools, and they can interact with the astronauts and put questions, they see astronauts answering in free fall and even those experiments with water and stuff floating in the air. Impossible to fake.

Actually, there is another on-going experiment in time dilation that you may have heard of.  The US government put some 30 odd atomic clocks in 20,200 km orbits above the earth and have them constantly transmit time stamps.  These clocks are continuously monitored and need to be synchronized on a regular basis.  This experiment has been so successful that the European Union, the Russians, the Chinese and several other nations are working on their own versions.
I didn't know it, thank you for the info.

They didn't grow old relative to each other. One really grew old, the other really staid young. Why didn't time slow down for the other twin instead of the travellor. If speed is relative, he didn't move at all in his own FoR.
Speed is relative only in the case of the so-called galilean invariance, that is when it comes to bodies in straight uniform speed. These are the inertial reference frames.

The twin experiment has to do with non-inertial reference frames, when one (or both) bodies move with accelerated motion. Note that a rotating body is accelerated because the speed vector changes with time.

It is a real experiment: they put two identical and perfectly synchronized atomic clocks one on the ground and the other on a plane around the earth. At the end of the trip they confronted the clocks and the travelling clock was slowed-down, and in good agreement with general relativity.  This is a rough summary, if you want details:

This page is interesting, it explains other similar experiments too, all in agreement wit GR. Note that it says even that these corrections are made for GPS.

When debating these topics is of paramount importance to understand the reference frame we are talking about, and if it is inertial or not. The O.P. (True Myth) did a mess with these concepts, in other words the earth orbiting the sun is a non-inertial reference frame, and thus the two cases: the earth orbits the sun or the sun orbits the earth are quite different and it's possible to tell the difference with accurate experiments. For the same reason a motionless earth and a rotating one are non-inertial RFs and it is possible to tell the difference, e.g. Coriolis (apparent) forces or Foucault pendulum.

Flat Earth General / Re: Apollo 13.
« on: April 02, 2013, 08:17:04 AM »
Are there any "real" forces? If yes, why is gravity not one? If no, why do we have  (very useful)concept of force at all?
There are four fundamental forces, in order of increasing power:

1) Gravity

2) Electromagnetism

3) Weak nuclear force

4) Strong nuclear force.

1) and 2) don't have spatial limitations; 3) and 4) are limited at distances as the diameter of the atom's nucleus.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5