A test of respect for the FE community.

  • 44 Replies
  • 6606 Views
*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2007, 06:49:16 PM »
Quote
I'm still confused about this.  Tom says there is gravity, just not on earth.  You say there is none.  What do the sun and moon orbit? What about all those billions of galaxies out there spinning exactly according to gravitational hypotheses? There can't be orbits without gravity.

I'm pretty sure Tom is the only Flat Earther in the world who believes in gravity.

The sun and moon don't orbit, because the concept of orbit requires a non-existent force: gravity, as you just pointed out. The sun and moon circle above the equator (roughly - their positions change somewhat).

Yeah, but you still didn't answer my question.  What about all the other galaxies/planetary systems in the sky that orbit according to gravity?

Also, what keeps the moon and sun circling? And (I know this has probably been answered, but I still haven't gotten an answer myself for it) how exactly does the photoelectric effect keep the sun/moon from crashing into the earth?  Doesn't gravity explain this with much more ease and universality?

Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2007, 07:39:43 PM »

(2) If you climb higher, you can see further.  On top of a mountain or
lighthouse, or in an airplane, you can see things that are invisible
-- below the horizon -- when you are on the ground.  For example, if
you watch the Sun set, and at the very moment when the Sun is just
below the horizon you climb quickly up a hundred feet, you will see
the Sun again.  It is hard to explain why you can see further when you
climb higher unless the Earth's surface curves downward away from you
wherever you stand.

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance (this is also the answer to the fairly frequent "WHY CAN'T I SEE THE EIFFEL TOWER FROM NEW YORK YOU FE'S ARE CRAZY" threads).
I believe that midnight is referring to this answer. I fear that I may have hindered him in getting an answer. Let me implore the FEers to better answer Powerchii's question.

The challenge would be to explain the effect as it occurs in all weather conditions even when smog or fog affects 100 feet up, but not at the surface.

(Sorry about that, midnight.)
« Last Edit: June 09, 2007, 07:51:45 PM by Gulliver »

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2007, 07:47:22 PM »
It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance.

This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.

Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response?  :-*
I can see Polaris on most any clear night. In RE that's about 2,200,000,000,000,000 miles. In the FE (FAQ version), it's 3100 miles.

Wrong.

You see the light FROM Polaris. Again, sidestepping will not save the day here. Answer the fucking question, or GTFO.
And what do you see when you look across the room at your TV but the light FROM the TV. I'm not sidestepping the issue at all. I just think you're confused. We can see very far indeed. You've confused vision acuity with vision distance.

Nice try, but no. I am talking about the excuse given dealing with atmospheric hindrance of our ability to see a satellite. There is more involved and the answer is a blanket statement, and was intentionally avoiding the actual question, and as of today, I will no longer sit silent and allow such inanity to continue unchallenged.

I am not calling into question the reasoning behind the answer, nor am I calling the post I am referring to as wrong, I simply am sick of you high and mighties refusing to answer a question without any shred of logisitical data, and merely "because it is, because it is". I want to see it. I am tired of half answers. The answer given is one I agree with, but it's half assed and meant to speak on something monumentally important to many, many folks. Stop half assing, and start actually speaking at length.

Some of them will call names, some will say "you're retarded". I will point out exactly what the problem is. Dodging it will not make it go away any longer.  :-*

You're not going to win your argument like this.  Just ask a question, and if you don't get an answer, ask again differently.

And the whole thing about how we're not actually seeing Polaris.. yeah. That's probably the worst argument I've ever heard.  The human eye only sees reflected light.  We never actually see anything itself.  But what Dogplatter is saying is that the atmosphere distorts the light reflected from that at which you're looking, and therefore you can't see it.  Now this isn't to say that I agree with it, because I believe that the atmosphere isn't enough to distort the view of what we're seeing.  But still, you can't immediately refute this argument, like so many others on this site.  In fact, we should probably get an infrared or ultraviolet picture of the horizon, and see what that does for us.

Thank you, I honestly expected the total opposite responses. You sir, or maam, are a boon to these boards.

As for you Bushido, your clock stopped ticking yesterday. Enjoy the basking now. It will end.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2007, 07:57:42 PM »
Nice try, but no. I am talking about the excuse given dealing with atmospheric hindrance of our ability to see a satellite.
I want to be sure here that I've answered the mail. I suspect that you may wish to know how to see a satellite cross the night sky for yourself. While it takes some patience, you can do that from most any suburban, and all rural, locations. You just need to know where to look. Satellites are usually dim (There are exceptions.) and fast-moving. Be sure to go out twenty minutes beforehand to allow your eyes to acclimate and to find the stars needed to find the predicted path.

The website that I use for observing satellites is: http://www.heavens-above.com/.

I hope that helps.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2007, 08:11:26 PM »
Can someone explain how seeing this 'ISS' is somehow magically proving an RE? That would be like arguing seeing a plane overhead proves outer-space flight or something. You'll have to do better than that.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2007, 08:32:12 PM »
Can someone explain how seeing this 'ISS' is somehow magically proving an RE? That would be like arguing seeing a plane overhead proves outer-space flight or something. You'll have to do better than that.
Sure. RE predicts when ISS will pass overhead, how long its transit will take, and the course that it will take for any observer at any location at any time. Please reference: http://www.heavens-above.com/.

The RE argument is that there is no other technology available that will allow such short and accurately predicted transits expect orbiting spacecraft. Furthermore, even backyard telescopes can discern some larger details of ISS (general shape, whether a shuttle is docked). These images are consistent with predictions and not distorted by hanging lens.

I hope that helps. If I ever fail to answer a question you think I should have, please PM me to wake me up. Thanks.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2007, 08:40:41 PM »
Ugh, that's not what I meant. But I'm too lazy to explain it out to you.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2007, 09:14:45 PM »
Can someone explain how seeing this 'ISS' is somehow magically proving an RE? That would be like arguing seeing a plane overhead proves outer-space flight or something. You'll have to do better than that.

Haha, I knew someone would bring that up.  That's why I was careful to say that the ISS only proves sustained spaceflight is possible.  Unfortunately, the FE theory relies somewhat on spaceflight being impossible, with the conspiracy and all that.

Still haven't gotten a reply, though.

*

sokarul

  • 18883
  • Extra Racist
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2007, 11:17:19 PM »
No the ISS proves a round earth.  There are north south orbits too.  Using the RE model one can predict where the ISS will be and take a picture of it.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Bushido

Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2007, 12:56:40 AM »
...
As for you Bushido, your clock stopped ticking yesterday. Enjoy the basking now. It will end.


*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2007, 01:34:49 AM »
That's why I was careful to say that the ISS only proves sustained spaceflight is possible.

Spaceflight is already possible with an airplane, and the sustained nature of that entails fuel consumption and refueling in air. Unless you mean outer-space, then that's different. Please use the appropriate term.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 07:21:28 AM by divito »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #41 on: June 10, 2007, 11:52:39 AM »
I'd say this "test" will be a redo next semester.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #42 on: June 10, 2007, 12:07:49 PM »
That's why I was careful to say that the ISS only proves sustained spaceflight is possible.

Spaceflight is already possible with an airplane, and the sustained nature of that entails fuel consumption and refueling in air. Unless you mean outer-space, then that's different. Please use the appropriate term.

In the FAQ is says "spaceflight", speaking of outer-space orbit-type spaceflight, so I'm going with that.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2007, 12:11:28 PM »
They really need to update that garbage.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: A test of respect for the FE community.
« Reply #44 on: June 10, 2007, 12:12:03 PM »
They really need to update that garbage.

No joke.