Clear Undeniable Proof

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:14:12 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:55:46 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 06:09:28 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:02:07 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 05:28:00 PM

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:18:47 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:14:12 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:55:46 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 06:09:28 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:02:07 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 05:28:00 PM

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

ACTUALLY, trying to seem more intelligent by unerringly picking up minor discrepencies in my grammer that have no bearing on the original debate at hand just makes you look like an fucktard and an idiot

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:23:24 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:18:47 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:14:12 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:55:46 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 06:09:28 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:02:07 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 05:28:00 PM

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

ACTUALLY, trying to seem more intelligent by unerringly picking up minor discrepencies in my grammer that have no bearing on the original debate at hand just makes you look like an fucktard and an idiot

Speaking of an _____,you should consider becoming an hero.

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:27:31 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:23:24 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:18:47 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:14:12 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:55:46 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 06:09:28 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:02:07 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 05:28:00 PM

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

ACTUALLY, trying to seem more intelligent by unerringly picking up minor discrepencies in my grammer that have no bearing on the original debate at hand just makes you look like an fucktard and an idiot

Speaking of an _____,you should consider becoming an hero.

that, ofcourse, was a mistake, was going to put idiot first but somehow that did not happen.  and the fact that you know of the an hero phrase just prove to me that you are a troll.
also, would you like me to fix any minor errors ive ever made, you to please you?

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

FE failed to explain these 3 observations:

1- Lunar eclipse (You don't have any evidence that such a shadow object exist, even not detectable in ANY kind of radiation)

2- Ships sinking in the horizon (Rowbotham tried to explain it with perspective's law, but he obviously didn't know how perspective works because his little schemas are completely wrong)

3- Equinox experiment (During the equinox, in RE theory, the sun should be at 90° azimuth at sunrise, and at 270° azimuth at sunset, which is what we observe. Yep, I did the experiment last March 21st at 6:45 am. But in FE theory, the sun should never be observed at 90° at sunrise and at 270° at sunset).

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:29:17 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:27:31 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:23:24 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:18:47 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:14:12 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:55:46 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 06:09:28 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:02:07 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 05:28:00 PM

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

ACTUALLY, trying to seem more intelligent by unerringly picking up minor discrepencies in my grammer that have no bearing on the original debate at hand just makes you look like an fucktard and an idiot

Speaking of an _____,you should consider becoming an hero.

that, ofcourse, was a mistake, was going to put idiot first but somehow that did not happen.  and the fact that you know of the an hero phrase just prove to me that you are a troll.
also, would you like me to fix any minor errors ive ever made, you to please you?

Yes actually, I would like you to fix simple mistakes. Also,I don't follow you're "He knows a meme so hence must be a troll" logic. Please elaborate.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 06:09:28 PM

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

FE failed to explain these 3 observations:

1- Lunar eclipse (You don't have any evidence that such a shadow object exist, even not detectable in ANY kind of radiation)

2- Ships sinking in the horizon (Rowbotham tried to explain it with perspective's law, but he obviously didn't know how perspective works because his little schemas are completely wrong)

3- Equinox experiment (During the equinox, in RE theory, the sun should be at 90° azimuth at sunrise, and at 270° azimuth at sunset, which is what we observe. Yep, I did the experiment last March 21st at 6:45 am. But in FE theory, the sun should never be observed at 90° at sunrise and at 270° at sunset).

I hate answering like this, but lurk/search more.

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:32:51 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:29:17 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:27:31 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:23:24 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 07:18:47 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 07:14:12 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:55:46 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 06:09:28 PM

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:02:07 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 05:28:00 PM

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

ACTUALLY, trying to seem more intelligent by unerringly picking up minor discrepencies in my grammer that have no bearing on the original debate at hand just makes you look like an fucktard and an idiot

Speaking of an _____,you should consider becoming an hero.

that, ofcourse, was a mistake, was going to put idiot first but somehow that did not happen.  and the fact that you know of the an hero phrase just prove to me that you are a troll.
also, would you like me to fix any minor errors ive ever made, you to please you?

Yes actually, I would like you to fix simple mistakes. Also,I don't follow you're "He knows a meme so hence must be a troll" logic. Please elaborate.

Quote from: grifoli on April 16, 2009, 07:37:18 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 16, 2009, 06:09:28 PM

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

FE failed to explain these 3 observations:

1- Lunar eclipse (You don't have any evidence that such a shadow object exist, even not detectable in ANY kind of radiation)

2- Ships sinking in the horizon (Rowbotham tried to explain it with perspective's law, but he obviously didn't know how perspective works because his little schemas are completely wrong)

3- Equinox experiment (During the equinox, in RE theory, the sun should be at 90° azimuth at sunrise, and at 270° azimuth at sunset, which is what we observe. Yep, I did the experiment last March 21st at 6:45 am. But in FE theory, the sun should never be observed at 90° at sunrise and at 270° at sunset).

I hate answering like this, but lurk/search more.

i assume your a troll for 2 reasons:

you are sure as hell acting like it
and 2; the an hero is something that stays pretty much isolated in the chans and ED. and most people from there are trolls aswell. and no, i wont fix every single little error ive made in this thread. you seem to be the only person who gives a shit about them, and does it make it any harder to read? no. so shut the fuck up about my tiny errors here and there

I hate answering like this, but lurk/search more.

Honestly, Waste_of_Mind, I've been here for enough long time to know what's going on here. And all your arguments trying to explain those 3 observations are completely non-sense. I've read tons of Tom's arguments, I've read couple chapters of Earth not a globe, and I read your FAQ hundred of time. And I came up with that conclusion; FE theory completely failed to explain logically those 3 observations.

Now that some of you explain the ship's sinking in the horizon because of optical illusion cause by light bending upwards, you should publish your results (if you have some, which I doubt) and you will probably get the next Nobel prize.

i assume your a troll for 2 reasons:

you are sure as hell acting like it
and 2; the an hero is something that stays pretty much isolated in the chans and ED. and most people from there are trolls aswell. and no, i wont fix every single little error ive made in this thread. you seem to be the only person who gives a shit about them, and does it make it any harder to read? no. so shut the fuck up about my tiny errors here and there

First of all,your errors do make it harder to read,and make you sound uneducated,which I assume is not the case. Also, the "an hero" meme has spread so all over the internet,not just the *chans and ED.

Quote

i assume your a troll for 2 reasons:

you are sure as hell acting like it
and 2; the an hero is something that stays pretty much isolated in the chans and ED. and most people from there are trolls aswell. and no, i wont fix every single little error ive made in this thread. you seem to be the only person who gives a shit about them, and does it make it any harder to read? no. so shut the fuck up about my tiny errors here and there

First of all,your errors do make it harder to read,and make you sound uneducated,which I assume is not the case. Also, the "an hero" meme has spread so all over the internet,not just the *chans and ED.

if it makes it harder to read, you must be fucking dyslexic or something. because noone else has ever commented on it.
oh yeah, telling me to go kill myself is such a civil thing these days, right?
now, get the fuck off the topic of my grammer and contribute to the subject at hand...

FE failed to explain these 3 observations:

1- Lunar eclipse (You don't have any evidence that such a shadow object exist, even not detectable in ANY kind of radiation)

The most significant evidence for a shadow object would probably be the shadow on the moon. Visible light qualifies as radiation last I checked.

2- Ships sinking in the horizon (Rowbotham tried to explain it with perspective's law, but he obviously didn't know how perspective works because his little schemas are completely wrong)

Prove it. You are reciting a conclusion without any structural support.

3- Equinox experiment (During the equinox, in RE theory, the sun should be at 90° azimuth at sunrise, and at 270° azimuth at sunset, which is what we observe. Yep, I did the experiment last March 21st at 6:45 am. But in FE theory, the sun should never be observed at 90° at sunrise and at 270° at sunset).

The observations of apparent solar behavior is the same in both theories. I don't know why you'd think differently.

Quote from: grifoli on April 16, 2009, 07:37:18 PM

FE failed to explain these 3 observations:

1- Lunar eclipse (You don't have any evidence that such a shadow object exist, even not detectable in ANY kind of radiation)

The most significant evidence for a shadow object would probably be the shadow on the moon. Visible light qualifies as radiation last I checked.

If the shadow object is blocking the sun's light from reaching the moon, then the shadow object must either absorb the sun's light or reflect the sun's light.  Either way, it seems that the shadow object should be detectable (that is, unless the shadow object is really a black hole).

If the shadow object is blocking the sun's light from reaching the moon, then the shadow object must either absorb the sun's light or reflect the sun's light.  Either way, it seems that the shadow object should be detectable (that is, unless the shadow object is really a black hole).

The shadow object is a satellite of the sun and is always on the "day" side of the earth. Since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere and blots out the entire celestial sky, it is not visible.

The shadow object is a satellite of the sun and is always on the "day" side of the earth. Since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere and blots out the entire celestial sky, it is not visible.

So it's impossible to observe it directly? Why are you then so certain it exists?

So it's impossible to observe it directly? Why are you then so certain it exists?

Because it's indirectly observable during a lunar eclipse when the Sun, Shadow Object, and Moon align.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 17, 2009, 12:45:23 PM

Quote

2- Ships sinking in the horizon (Rowbotham tried to explain it with perspective's law, but he obviously didn't know how perspective works because his little schemas are completely wrong)

Prove it.

Read this thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19640.msg360875#msg360875

Yes, those were my original assessments when visiting the site because I didn't understand the mechanics of light beyond simple vectors. If I didn't discover errors in that mode of thought, what reason is there to become a proponent for FE now? 

I'm actually glad you cited that thread because it demonstrates that I had a similar understanding of those oversimplified applications of light, which I fortunately eventually overcame. Similarly, I once was Christian and I eventual became an atheist and still try to help others do the same. It was always more effective when I told them we shared the same belief at one point, to know that the path we were on was the same one, and that I had an intricate understanding of what they believed. Someone with no experience dealing with the subject is usually disregarded.

Furthermore, the diagrams I posted aren't evidence. They are illustrations mapping out the beliefs I had already instilled and I projected them as reality.

It seems the topic has strayed a little bit. I am very cursious, though, to hear what Tom Bishop et al think of the question I posed at the begining.

Quote from: grifoli on April 16, 2009, 07:37:18 PM

FE failed to explain these 3 observations:

1- Lunar eclipse (You don't have any evidence that such a shadow object exist, even not detectable in ANY kind of radiation)

The most significant evidence for a shadow object would probably be the shadow on the moon. Visible light qualifies as radiation last I checked.

I don't understand your claim here. Yes, visible light is radiation. Are you telling me that the shadow object is reflecting visible light?

Quote from: grifoli

2- Ships sinking in the horizon (Rowbotham tried to explain it with perspective's law, but he obviously didn't know how perspective works because his little schemas are completely wrong)

Prove it. You are reciting a conclusion without any structural support.

Read any books that talk about perspective (linear perspective, vanishing point and geometrical horizon). Rowbotham is the only guy who explains perspective differently.

Quote from: grifoli

3- Equinox experiment (During the equinox, in RE theory, the sun should be at 90° azimuth at sunrise, and at 270° azimuth at sunset, which is what we observe. Yep, I did the experiment last March 21st at 6:45 am. But in FE theory, the sun should never be observed at 90° at sunrise and at 270° at sunset).

The observations of apparent solar behavior is the same in both theories. I don't know why you'd think differently.

At the equinox, there is a major problem in FE theory. Take a look at this picture:



You clearly see that in your flat earth model, the sun could never appear with an azimuth of 90° at sunrise. Unfortunately for you, during equinox, the sun does appear with an azimuth of 90° at sunrise.

It seems the topic has strayed a little bit. I am very cursious, though, to hear what Tom Bishop et al think of the question I posed at the begining.

How could anything make me believe that the earth is a globe when it's not?

Quote from: Igannon on April 17, 2009, 04:36:07 PM

It seems the topic has strayed a little bit. I am very cursious, though, to hear what Tom Bishop et al think of the question I posed at the begining.

How could anything make me believe that the earth is a globe when it's not?

For arguments sake,assume it is.

Because it's indirectly observable during a lunar eclipse when the Sun, Shadow Object, and Moon align.

And dark matter is indirectly observable in the motion of the galaxies. Why do you consider that a 'unknown undiscovered mechanism', but not the shadow object?

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2009, 01:08:24 PM

If the shadow object is blocking the sun's light from reaching the moon, then the shadow object must either absorb the sun's light or reflect the sun's light.  Either way, it seems that the shadow object should be detectable (that is, unless the shadow object is really a black hole).

The shadow object is a satellite of the sun and is always on the "day" side of the earth. Since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere and blots out the entire celestial sky, it is not visible.

Not visible is not the same as not detectable.  Electricity is not visible, but is detectable.  The shadow object may not be visible, but it should be detectable.

The shadow object may not be visible, but it should be detectable.

Watch the Moon during the next lunar eclipse.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2009, 06:40:42 PM

The shadow object may not be visible, but it should be detectable.

Watch the Moon during the next lunar eclipse.

The shadow object is a satellite of the sun and is always on the "day" side of the earth. Since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere and blots out the entire celestial sky, it is not visible.

How am I supposed to detect the shadow object if the eclipse is at night and the shadow object is on the day side? 

How am I supposed to detect the shadow object if the eclipse is at night and the shadow object is on the day side? 

By observing its shadow on the Moon.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2009, 06:48:02 PM

How am I supposed to detect the shadow object if the eclipse is at night and the shadow object is on the day side? 

By observing its shadow on the Moon.

How does that tell me where the shadow object is?

How does that tell me where the shadow object is?

Well, it must be somewhere between the Sun and Moon, mustn't it?

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2009, 06:51:49 PM

How does that tell me where the shadow object is?

Well, it must be somewhere between the Sun and Moon, mustn't it?

That depends on how much the light bends along the way, doesn't it?

That depends on how much the light bends along the way, doesn't it?

I didn't specify the path it had to be on between the Sun and Moon. Just that it had to be somewhere between them, on whatever path the light takes.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2009, 06:51:49 PM

How does that tell me where the shadow object is?

Well, it must be somewhere between the Sun and Moon, mustn't it?

Yes, and all physicist, geologist, scientists, and engineers call it the planet Earth.