An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

  • 242 Replies
  • 53836 Views
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #150 on: March 25, 2009, 01:16:43 PM »
First try to understand what you are talking about.
I understand what I am talking about

I am glad to hear that.

but you seem to play with semantics only.

Interesting. When you are speaking about sand, trees, water, earth, big buildings et cetera - it's logic; when I show that you are inconsistent in your terms - it's "semantic only". Right?

You clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat.

With all my due respect, I do not remember saying that.


If you don't specify - I see the flat earth and therefore the earth is flat in my near vicinity - then all other people are going to assume that you talk about whole Earth.


Really? So when you wrote:

"You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat."

"all other people" were going to assume that you meant I saw the whole Earth from my window? Do you see the whole Earth from your window? What are you talking about?

So, please don't play with semantics here.

Please try to understand what you are talking about.

And better yet, don't even argue here if you don't talk about whole earth. This thing here is about whole earth, not about piece of it.


"This thing here" (if you mean the thread) is about the picture. But if "this thing here" was "about whole earth, not about piece of it", why you were speaking about:

"a little piece of it"

"small piece of it"?
 
And you must explain to me, what did you exactly mean when you said - therefore it(the Earth) is flat. What is flat - the piece of land near you or the whole earth. If you clarify this point then maybe we can talk further.


This is a good point. But first, I must know what do you mean when you speak about "the whole earth". You have recently introduced this term but did not explain it.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #151 on: March 25, 2009, 03:00:04 PM »
Quote
You clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat.
With all my due respect, I do not remember saying that.
You make me feel that you are some kind of robot or you just don't understand sentence anymore if the words are not exactly the same. In the message http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27692.msg657469#msg657469 you said:
I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.
I summarized it - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat.
In the message - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27692.msg657817#msg657817 you quoted my line - "You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat." and stated that this was - Correct.
But, I guess you are going to argue now that you didn't say that therefore Earth is flat. You said it was flat. Okay, what is this it?

Quote
If you don't specify - I see the flat earth and therefore the earth is flat in my near vicinity - then all other people are going to assume that you talk about whole Earth.
Really? So when you wrote:
"You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat."
"all other people" were going to assume that you meant I saw the whole Earth from my window? Do you see the whole Earth from your window? What are you talking about?
I am asking you again, why you argue about Flat Earth here if you only talk about the area which you can survey with your eyes? And ask from any person here what did they assume when they saw you write - I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

Quote
And better yet, don't even argue here if you don't talk about whole earth. This thing here is about whole earth, not about piece of it.
"This thing here" (if you mean the thread) is about the picture.
This thing here is this forum. And I just must ask - are you wearing some kind of eye patches similar to those which horses have in races so they can focus only on one thing? You seem to see only one or two words at once and don't quite get the meaning of sentence if there is more words there.


Quote
And you must explain to me, what did you exactly mean when you said - therefore it(the Earth) is flat. What is flat - the piece of land near you or the whole earth. If you clarify this point then maybe we can talk further.
This is a good point. But first, I must know what do you mean when you speak about "the whole earth". You have recently introduced this term but did not explain it.
The whole earth is the whole earth. How many meanings there are in english language for a word - whole? I use it here as synonym for - entire, total, all. So, now please explain me what did to you the term - earth - means?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #152 on: March 25, 2009, 04:03:49 PM »
Quote
You clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat.
With all my due respect, I do not remember saying that.

You make me feel that you are some kind of robot or you just don't understand sentence anymore if the words are not exactly the same.


Sorry, but you make me feel like you are a brainless zombie unable to remember who was saying what, as well as to remember, much less to understand, your own words. You wrote:

"You clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat."

Do you understand what you wrote yourself? You stated that I  "clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat."

Your statement is FALSE. I  did not say that, and on top of that, I did not say it clearly. Do you understand that?

If you are not using exact expressions, how you can prove or disprove something?


you just don't understand sentence anymore if the words are not exactly the same.

Sorry, my fault. So, you "understand sentence" if the words are different and do not understand it if the words are exactly the same or what? What did you mean here?


Quote
If you don't specify - I see the flat earth and therefore the earth is flat in my near vicinity - then all other people are going to assume that you talk about whole Earth.
Really? So when you wrote:
"You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat."
"all other people" were going to assume that you meant I saw the whole Earth from my window? Do you see the whole Earth from your window? What are you talking about?

I am asking you again, why you argue about Flat Earth here if you only talk about the area which you can survey with your eyes?


Why not? From a plane you can survey quite a lot. Just look out the window. The last time I was looking from 35,000 feet at the Atlantic Ocean, Greenland, Iceland, England, a good portion of continental Europe - everything was flat. The horizon was straight. You can easily verify my observation myself. If you own a plane, a helicopter or, even better - a zeppelin, you can scan in such a way a considerable portion of Earth or, may be, even the whole surface.

And ask from any person here what did they assume when they saw you write - I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.


Why should I do that?

Quote
And better yet, don't even argue here if you don't talk about whole earth. This thing here is about whole earth, not about piece of it.
"This thing here" (if you mean the thread) is about the picture.

This thing here is this forum.

OK,

"This thing here is this forum";

"This thing here is about whole earth, not about piece of it"

=> "This forum is about whole earth, not about piece of it"

Correct? Is that what you mean?


And I just must ask - are you wearing some kind of eye patches similar to those which horses have in races so they can focus only on one thing? You seem to see only one or two words at once and don't quite get the meaning of sentence if there is more words there.

Cool. How many things you can focus on simultaneously and how many words do you see at once?



Quote
And you must explain to me, what did you exactly mean when you said - therefore it(the Earth) is flat. What is flat - the piece of land near you or the whole earth. If you clarify this point then maybe we can talk further.
This is a good point. But first, I must know what do you mean when you speak about "the whole earth". You have recently introduced this term but did not explain it.
The whole earth is the whole earth. How many meanings there are in english language for a word - whole? I use it here as synonym for - entire, total, all. So, now please explain me what did to you the term - earth - means?

So, your explanation is:

"The whole earth is the whole earth."

Perfect. Then read mine:

The earth is the earth.

:)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 04:40:58 PM by Humble_Scientist »
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #153 on: March 25, 2009, 05:38:05 PM »
Quote
Just a guess... if you are a REer what you see is probably an illusion. If you are a FEer, which planet are you looking at?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. All I am saying is that as you can't see as far as you would expect to see if it was flat, then why believe it is flat?

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #154 on: March 25, 2009, 07:03:03 PM »
Quote
Just a guess... if you are a REer what you see is probably an illusion. If you are a FEer, which planet are you looking at?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. All I am saying is that as you can't see as far as you would expect to see if it was flat, then why believe it is flat?

Now I am not sure I follow what you mean.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

symbi0sis

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #155 on: March 25, 2009, 09:55:24 PM »
Okay, I have two points to make. The first pertains to the previous debate, that appears to have been abandoned, on whether or not nuclear fusion was sustainable. The second pertains to the ongoing discussion between Humble_Scientist and NTheGreat on the content of NTheGreat's post:
I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire planet at one time. Therefore, I assume that the planet is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not.

Point 1
Nuclear fusion is not sustainable. Stars do not continue fusing material indefinitely. At some point stars run out of material to fuse and stop producing energy; however, stars do engage in nuclear fusion for a very long time because of their massive nature. They have so much material that it takes a long time for them to run short of it. The fusion reactions, which have been quoted before, which have been performed by humans have had much shorter time scales because they have consisted of much less material than that which is present in stars.

There. Is that satisfactory? Please, point out any mistakes I may have made. I will be happy to make corrections as necessary.

Point 2
I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire planet at one time. Therefore, I assume that the planet is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not.

There appears to be some confusion as to what has been stated here. This is my interpretation of what has been said.

A person stands on a point on the Earth where he has an unobstructed view of the Earth's surface (i.e. this part of the Earth does not undulate [it is at a constant height above sea level] and there is no man-made structure visible nor are there trees; there may of course be anything beyond the field of vision). Now, say there is a range of mountains beyond the horizon. If the Earth were spherical the mountains would not be visible because light that they are reflecting cannot bend around the surface of the Earth to reach the person's eyes. If the mountains were outside his natural field of vision then he could use a telescope to extend it, but the mountains would still not be visible. As long the person knew that there were mountains beyond the horizon he could say that the Earth is round because he cannot see all the way to the perimeter of a flat Earth. Conversely, if the Earth were a flat disc then he should be able to see the mountains (albeit they would appear very small). If the mountains were out of his natural field of vision then he should be able to use a telescope to extend it and see the mountains.

That is what NTheGreat appears to me to be saying. Please, correct me if necessary.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #156 on: March 25, 2009, 11:53:40 PM »
Sorry, but you make me feel like you are a brainless zombie unable to remember who was saying what, as well as to remember, much less to understand, your own words. You wrote:
"You clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat."
Do you understand what you wrote yourself? You stated that I  "clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat."
Your statement is FALSE. I  did not say that, and on top of that, I did not say it clearly. Do you understand that?
Did you read what did you say in message http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27692.msg657469#msg657469 ? Exact quote is:
I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.
 I took the liberty to summarize that and out came - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat.
I fail to notice the difference about the meaning of both sentences. Only the difference in amount of words. So, for me you said it quite clearly.


The whole earth is the whole earth. How many meanings there are in english language for a word - whole? I use it here as synonym for - entire, total, all. So, now please explain me what did to you the term - earth - means?

So, your explanation is:
"The whole earth is the whole earth."
Perfect. Then read mine:
The earth is the earth.
:)
Okay, "whole earth" is the entire(do you know at least what "entire" means?) planet or whatever it is where all people in the world live. It includes all the earth and water on world which you can't see at the moment. I can't specify it more explicitly than that.
And the last thing you can do is say what place/thing is flat when you look out the window? Is it the land what you can see with your eyes or is it the land what you see and also the land what you don't see?
 If there is one thing that you have made perfectly clear then that is - you can't understand english language.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #157 on: March 26, 2009, 05:21:14 AM »
Sorry, but you make me feel like you are a brainless zombie unable to remember who was saying what, as well as to remember, much less to understand, your own words. You wrote:
"You clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat."
Do you understand what you wrote yourself? You stated that I  "clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat."
Your statement is FALSE. I  did not say that, and on top of that, I did not say it clearly. Do you understand that?
Did you read what did you say in message http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27692.msg657469#msg657469 ? Exact quote is:
I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.
 I took the liberty to summarize that and out came - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat.
I fail to notice the difference about the meaning of both sentences. Only the difference in amount of words. So, for me you said it quite clearly.


The whole earth is the whole earth. How many meanings there are in english language for a word - whole? I use it here as synonym for - entire, total, all. So, now please explain me what did to you the term - earth - means?

So, your explanation is:
"The whole earth is the whole earth."
Perfect. Then read mine:
The earth is the earth.
:)
Okay, "whole earth" is the entire(do you know at least what "entire" means?) planet or whatever it is where all people in the world live. It includes all the earth and water on world which you can't see at the moment. I can't specify it more explicitly than that.
And the last thing you can do is say what place/thing is flat when you look out the window? Is it the land what you can see with your eyes or is it the land what you see and also the land what you don't see?
 If there is one thing that you have made perfectly clear then that is - you can't understand english language.
No. You're quite mistaken. He chooses not to understand. It's a lame defense to prevent having to face a failed position, just like lying.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #158 on: March 26, 2009, 01:19:04 PM »

 If there is one thing that you have made perfectly clear then that is - you can't understand english language.

If there is one thing that you have made perfectly clear then that is - your "english language" consists of rare inability to express yourself in English language. Constantly making false statements and producing masterpieces of stupidity of mammoth, epic, inconceivable proportions, you are bold enough to reproach others!

How I or anyone else can understand you if you have not a slightest idea what are you talking about and, on top of that, are utterly unable to express your thoughts (if you have them, of course)?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #159 on: March 26, 2009, 01:32:11 PM »
If there is one thing that you have made perfectly clear then that is - you can't understand english language.
If there is one thing that you have made perfectly clear then that is - your "english language" consists of rare inability to express yourself in English language. Constantly making false statements and producing masterpieces of stupidity of mammoth, epic, inconceivable proportions, you are bold enough to reproach others!
How I or anyone else can understand you if you have not a slightest idea what are you talking about and, on top of that, are utterly unable to express your thoughts (if you have them, of course)?
Sorry, you have to ask from others here who of us makes more sense. Me or you. And I did asked from you one last question which you didn't answer:
And the last thing you can do is say what place/thing is flat when you look out the window? Is it the land what you can see with your eyes or is it the land what you see and also the land what you don't see?

And you also failed to explain why my statement was false even when I quoted you exactly:
In your message http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27692.msg657469#msg657469 is exact quote:
I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.
I took the liberty to summarize that and out came - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat.
I fail to notice the difference about the meaning of both sentences. Only the difference in amount of words.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #160 on: March 26, 2009, 01:39:50 PM »
Okay, I have two points to make. The first pertains to the previous debate, that appears to have been abandoned, on whether or not nuclear fusion was sustainable. The second pertains to the ongoing discussion between Humble_Scientist and NTheGreat on the content of NTheGreat's post:
I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire planet at one time. Therefore, I assume that the planet is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not.

Point 1
Nuclear fusion is not sustainable. Stars do not continue fusing material indefinitely. At some point stars run out of material to fuse and stop producing energy; however, stars do engage in nuclear fusion for a very long time because of their massive nature. They have so much material that it takes a long time for them to run short of it. The fusion reactions, which have been quoted before, which have been performed by humans have had much shorter time scales because they have consisted of much less material than that which is present in stars.

There. Is that satisfactory? Please, point out any mistakes I may have made. I will be happy to make corrections as necessary.

Point 2
I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire planet at one time. Therefore, I assume that the planet is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not.

There appears to be some confusion as to what has been stated here. This is my interpretation of what has been said.

A person stands on a point on the Earth where he has an unobstructed view of the Earth's surface (i.e. this part of the Earth does not undulate [it is at a constant height above sea level] and there is no man-made structure visible nor are there trees; there may of course be anything beyond the field of vision). Now, say there is a range of mountains beyond the horizon. If the Earth were spherical the mountains would not be visible because light that they are reflecting cannot bend around the surface of the Earth to reach the person's eyes. If the mountains were outside his natural field of vision then he could use a telescope to extend it, but the mountains would still not be visible. As long the person knew that there were mountains beyond the horizon he could say that the Earth is round because he cannot see all the way to the perimeter of a flat Earth. Conversely, if the Earth were a flat disc then he should be able to see the mountains (albeit they would appear very small). If the mountains were out of his natural field of vision then he should be able to use a telescope to extend it and see the mountains.

That is what NTheGreat appears to me to be saying. Please, correct me if necessary.

Dear symbi0sis,

I sincerely appreciate your effort to enlighten me. However, NTheGreat could not mean the Earth when (s)he mentioned "the planet", simply because Earth is not a planet.

Regarding the stars, I can just meekly remark that, as can be seen in the picture linked at the beginning of this very thread, it is impossible that stars were huge extremely hot celestial bodies. In the least distorted part of the picture (on the right) you can easily see that the size of the stars is not much more than that of fireflies, and that some stars in the picture are roaming probably just a few feet above the earth, not burning the neighbouring oak tree. Thus, from the picture provided by NASA it seems that stars are neither big nor hot.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #161 on: March 26, 2009, 01:49:48 PM »

Sorry, you have to ask from others here who of us makes more sense.

Why?

And I did asked from you one last question which you didn't answer:

Do you want me to list all my questions to which you provided no reply?

And the last thing you can do is say what place/thing is flat when you look out the window? Is it the land what you can see with your eyes or is it the land what you see and also the land what you don't see?


I have no idea what you are talking about. Read again what you have just written. How I can look out the window and tell you if the land I do not see is flat?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 01:53:15 PM by Humble_Scientist »
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #162 on: March 26, 2009, 02:02:10 PM »
Sorry, you have to ask from others here who of us makes more sense.
Why?
You make sense to you. I make sense to me. So the others must be ones who tell who makes more sense to them.

And I did asked from you one last question which you didn't answer:
Do you want me to list all my questions to which you provided no reply?
Yes, please.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Read again what you have just written. How I can look out the window and tell you if the land I do not see is flat?
That pretty much answers my question. The land you see is flat. So, then there is no need to argue when you say that the land you see is flat and I say that the entire planet named Earth which consist of land which I see and which I don't see is round. Because you don't make the claims about the land what you don't see.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 02:10:00 PM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #163 on: March 26, 2009, 06:16:09 PM »
Quote
I sincerely appreciate your effort to enlighten me. However, NTheGreat could not mean the Earth when (s)he mentioned "the planet", simply because Earth is not a planet.

I am referring to the Earth. 'The planet' is a synonym for the Earth, as far as I'm aware.

so, I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire Earth at one time. Therefore, I assume that the Earth is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not.

?

symbi0sis

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #164 on: March 27, 2009, 12:16:51 PM »
Regarding the stars, I can just meekly remark that, as can be seen in the picture linked at the beginning of this very thread, it is impossible that stars were huge extremely hot celestial bodies. In the least distorted part of the picture (on the right) you can easily see that the size of the stars is not much more than that of fireflies, and that some stars in the picture are roaming probably just a few feet above the earth, not burning the neighbouring oak tree. Thus, from the picture provided by NASA it seems that stars are neither big nor hot.

I wasn't specifically referring to the stars in the photograph. Just to the discussion about whether or not fusion is a viable source of energy.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #165 on: March 27, 2009, 12:54:24 PM »
Quote

I am referring to the Earth. 'The planet' is a synonym for the Earth, as far as I'm aware.

By any chance, aren't you also aware that the Earth is a celestial body?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #166 on: March 27, 2009, 01:24:14 PM »
Sorry, you have to ask from others here who of us makes more sense.
Why?

You make sense to you. I make sense to me. So the others must be ones who tell who makes more sense to them.

What a luxury! Thus, we have:

(1) you make sense to you

(2) I make sense to me

So

(3) the others must be ones who tell who makes more sense to them.


Now, having (1) and (2), could you please explain:

how did you obtain (3)?

Why it's me that have to ask from others?



And I did asked from you one last question which you didn't answer:
Do you want me to list all my questions to which you provided no reply?

Yes, please.

Frankly, I do not think it would be practical. A long list would make my post hardly readable. So, I hope you do not mind if I was placing the questions one by one in several posts. We can start right now. Here is the question that you did not bother to answer from my last post:

How I can look out the window and tell you if the land I do not see is flat?


I have no idea what you are talking about. Read again what you have just written. How I can look out the window and tell you if the land I do not see is flat?

That pretty much answers my question.

What "pretty much answers" your question: that I have no idea what you are talking about or this is your answer to my question?


The land you see is flat. So, then there is no need to argue when you say that the land you see is flat and I say that the entire planet named Earth which consist of land which I see and which I don't see is round. Because you don't make the claims about the land what you don't see.

Earth is not a planet. So, you must be speaking about some planet occasionally named Earth. I have no idea about that. Sorry, I do not remember making any claims about such a thing and was not discussing it at all.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #167 on: March 27, 2009, 01:53:39 PM »
(1) you make sense to you
(2) I make sense to me
So
(3) the others must be ones who tell who makes more sense to them.

Now, having (1) and (2), could you please explain:

how did you obtain (3)?

Why it's me that have to ask from others?
You really don't get the 3rd point? If we don't get what one of us is speaking about then we can ask from third party what they think. It's like court and judge. And why you... because I am too lazy.

Frankly, I do not think it would be practical. A long list would make my post hardly readable. So, I hope you do not mind if I was placing the questions one by one in several posts. We can start right now. Here is the question that you did not bother to answer from my last post:

How I can look out the window and tell you if the land I do not see is flat?
You learn math, geometry, physics and do some experiments(you can find quite some if you search this forum) and think about results. I quite don't get why I must explain it to a scientist.

Earth is not a planet. So, you must be speaking about some planet occasionally named Earth. I have no idea about that. Sorry, I do not remember making any claims about such a thing and was not discussing it at all.
Sorry, I for example live on the planet named Earth. So, I speak about it and if you don't live in same planet then... wow. But in case you live... can you refer me to the source which says that Earth is not a planet? Not in this forum but outside, in real world. Because there is no reason for me to believe it only because you say so and you do it also without any evidence.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #168 on: March 27, 2009, 03:21:18 PM »
can you refer me to the source which says that Earth is not a planet?

I am afraid I can't, wherever I live. Why... because I am too lazy. But you can learn math, geometry, physics and do some experiments (you can find quite some if you search not in this forum but outside) and think about results. Or you can ask from third party what they think.  I quite don't get why I must explain it to you.



Thanks, zork. It was such a fun.

:)
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #169 on: March 27, 2009, 11:09:41 PM »
can you refer me to the source which says that Earth is not a planet?
I am afraid I can't, wherever I live. Why... because I am too lazy.
No, no, no. It's not that you  are too lazy, it is a fact that you just can't find any source anywhere. But I am lazy because asking from others their opinion I must do new topic and somehow put a poll in top of it.
 But I see now that you somehow don't get the quite basic things and I am more than ready to believe that they have internet connections out there in funny farm rooms.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #170 on: March 28, 2009, 04:12:32 AM »

"it is a fact that you just can't find any source anywhere."

Wrong. Look here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17760.0


"I am lazy because asking from others their opinion I must do new topic and somehow put a poll in top of it."

So, you are lazy because doing something you must do something else? I see now that you somehow don't get the quite basic things.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #171 on: March 28, 2009, 04:20:18 AM »
"it is a fact that you just can't find any source anywhere."
Wrong. Look here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17760.0
If you just bother to look couple of messages back(http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27692.msg659907#msg659907) then you see that I asked source outside of this forum. Exact quote is:
can you refer me to the source which says that Earth is not a planet? Not in this forum but outside, in real world.

"I am lazy because asking from others their opinion I must do new topic and somehow put a poll in top of it."
So, you are lazy because doing something you must do something else? I see now that you somehow don't get the quite basic things.
No, I am lazy because doing something requires me doing something. Not because doing something(doing the new topic and figuring out how to get poll there) I must do something else(what exactly?). You really should get you basic thing stuff right.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #172 on: March 28, 2009, 06:14:16 AM »
"it is a fact that you just can't find any source anywhere."
Wrong. Look here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17760.0
If you just bother to look couple of messages back(http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27692.msg659907#msg659907) then you see that I asked source outside of this forum. Exact quote is:
can you refer me to the source which says that Earth is not a planet? Not in this forum but outside, in real world.


If you just bother to look what statement of yours I was answering, it was:

"it is a fact that you just can't find any source anywhere."

False statement.



"No, I am lazy because doing something requires me doing something."

Nonsense.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #173 on: March 28, 2009, 08:08:26 AM »
Guys, completely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but could you both learn to quote properly?  This is all very confusing to read!

Ta muchly!
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #174 on: March 28, 2009, 08:36:31 AM »
Quote
By any chance, aren't you also aware that the Earth is a celestial body?

Look, ignore whether it's a planet or celestial body or an obscure form of star or a kind of fruit or whatever. Just respond to the point.

I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> at one time. Therefore, I assume that the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not. Why then should I think that the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a large flat plane, when it doesn't look like one?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #175 on: March 28, 2009, 09:12:38 AM »
Quote
By any chance, aren't you also aware that the Earth is a celestial body?

Look, ignore whether it's a planet or celestial body or an obscure form of star or a kind of fruit or whatever. Just respond to the point.

I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> at one time. Therefore, I assume that the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not. Why then should I think that the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a large flat plane, when it doesn't look like one?

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, so I'm not sure why you'd expect to see infinitely into the distance.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #176 on: March 28, 2009, 10:16:21 AM »
Quote
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, so I'm not sure why you'd expect to see infinitely into the distance

So you can't actually see that the Earth is flat?

?

RAFboiMF

  • 144
  • Life's two beer mat to explode. duck
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #177 on: March 28, 2009, 10:24:05 AM »
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, so I'm not sure why you'd expect to see infinitely into the distance.

This is one of the simplest posts Tom has made and I was amazed by it because it's true.

If the earth was flat then you would not be able to see the entire world from a single point because the atmosphere would dissipate the light before it would reach your eye (or even telescope).
Have you ever tried scuba diving? It's the same thing just to a lesser extent.

However if this was the case then we would see a fading horizon (especially over the ocean where the water content in the atmosphere is higher) but instead we see a distinct and slightly curved horizon.
Quote from: Vongeo
It shall be detrimined(No time to spell, yet oddly time to awknowledge the mistake and type about it) eventually.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #178 on: March 28, 2009, 01:04:13 PM »
If you just bother to look what statement of yours I was answering, it was:
"it is a fact that you just can't find any source anywhere."
False statement.
You really must read the text in context. If you take all things out of context and reply to them after that then nobody gets what you  are babbling about. I asked you specifically source not from this forum and you didn't give it to me. If I then said that you can't find it anywhere then it means that you can't find it anywhere outside this forum.
 You really must work on your reading skill and write something that actually makes sense. It is really hard for everyone to understand what you really are getting at.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #179 on: March 28, 2009, 03:56:03 PM »
If you just bother to look what statement of yours I was answering, it was:
"it is a fact that you just can't find any source anywhere."
False statement.

 You really must read the text in context. If you take all things out of context and reply to them after that then nobody gets what you  are babbling about.


Well, this is that full text of yours, I just marked the false statement:

No, no, no. It's not that you are too lazy, it is a fact that you just can't find any source anywhere. But I am lazy because asking from others their opinion I must do new topic and somehow put a poll in top of it.
 But I see now that you somehow don't get the quite basic things and I am more than ready to believe that they have internet connections out there in funny farm rooms.


What context you are babbling about?


If I then

?

said that you can't find it anywhere

??

then it means that you can't find it anywhere outside this forum.

???

You really must work on your reading skill and write something that actually makes sense. It is really hard for everyone to understand what you really are getting at.

No, it is you that really must work on your reading skill and write something that actually makes sense. It is really hard for everyone to understand what you really are getting at.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 03:59:30 PM by Humble_Scientist »
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus