Skydiving

Quote from: julianmartin on June 10, 2009, 03:16:34 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 10, 2009, 12:55:48 AM

Quote from: julianmartin on June 09, 2009, 04:13:30 PM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 09, 2009, 07:15:23 AM

We now have a sky diver, on his first jump, with oxygen bottle, masses of warm clothing, a helmet to stop frostbite on face, plummeting at terminal velocity.  Through his frozen face mask he can see the Earth's perimeter and distinguish whether it is the edge of a flat disc or the round Earth horizon. Really?

What on earth are you talking about?

By suggesting what you are, you are saying that every person who has done a HALO or HAHO jump is a liar. If you haven't done it and hence don't believe it's possible because you haven't seen it, then don't comment. If you do comment, then you are a dirty liar. Deal with it - people have seen stuff that you will never have the opportunity to see.

I suggest that anyone doing such a jump is unlikely to take much notice of the shape of the horizon.

Oh because the view ISN'T spectacular at all. Some people might take notice, some people might not. It's hardly an argument for flat earth now is it?

Nobody said it was. It isn't an argument for RE either, as all you have is conjecture, and not even the claims of anyone who's actually done it. How do you know they never saw a flat horizon?

Well how do you guys explain the photographs?
Not based on the human eye, so they are not flawed.

LOL at the c*nts on this site who can't accept they're wrong. What stupid f*ckers.

I think, someone falling at terminal velocity, encumbered by face protection, breathing equipment etc is hardly likely to be able to focus on the horizon with any accuracy. Not having experienced sky diving, I admit I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

The only similar experience I have had is high speed on a motorcycle. The buffeting of the air on my helmet makes accurate vision of anything at distance very difficult. Terminal velocity is in excess of 120mph, considerable buffeting I think.

Quote from: Art_Jimmerson on June 10, 2009, 11:45:21 AM

LOL at the c*nts on this site who can't accept they're wrong. What stupid f*ckers.

I think, someone falling at terminal velocity, encumbered by face protection, breathing equipment etc is hardly likely to be able to focus on the horizon with any accuracy. Not having experienced sky diving, I admit I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

The only similar experience I have had is high speed on a motorcycle. The buffeting of the air on my helmet makes accurate vision of anything at distance very difficult. Terminal velocity is in excess of 120mph, considerable buffeting I think.

YET HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PHOTOGRAPHS??

Once again, I don't have a problem with the flat earth theory in itself, but the way in which you attempt to explain it, by calling skydivers liars. Why couldn't you just say that the atmosphere of the flat earth distorts light in a curve or something? Instead of trying to disprove obviously true photographs and eyewitness accounts.

The photos obviously show the edge of the flat Earth. On the second photo you can even see the icewall. 

Actually, looking again at the poorly faked photos, shouldn't gravity work vertically in the round Earth theory. Someone got that fake badly wrong.

shouldn't gravity work vertically in the round Earth theory. Someone got that fake badly wrong.

What do you mean?
Vertically from the centre of the earth so from the centre to the outer circumference. Vertical is not always straight up you idiot!

Vertical is not always straight up you idiot!

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 11, 2009, 10:04:09 AM

shouldn't gravity work vertically in the round Earth theory. Someone got that fake badly wrong.

What do you mean?
Vertically from the centre of the earth so from the centre to the outer circumference. Vertical is not always straight up you idiot!

Actually it is, that's sort of the definition.

Quote from: danwood on June 11, 2009, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 11, 2009, 10:04:09 AM

shouldn't gravity work vertically in the round Earth theory. Someone got that fake badly wrong.

What do you mean?
Vertically from the centre of the earth so from the centre to the outer circumference. Vertical is not always straight up you idiot!

Actually it is, that's sort of the definition.

Yeah, it is straight up, working that the surface is the, well, surface, and the core is well, the core.
Gravity pulls objects the source which would be the core. SO it does work vertically. North is not vertical someone apparently thinks it is.

Vertical is up in relation to the direction gravity, so the earth.

Vertical is up in relation to the direction gravity, so the earth.

Quote from: General Douchebag on June 11, 2009, 10:18:40 AM

Quote from: danwood on June 11, 2009, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 11, 2009, 10:04:09 AM

shouldn't gravity work vertically in the round Earth theory. Someone got that fake badly wrong.

What do you mean?
Vertically from the centre of the earth so from the centre to the outer circumference. Vertical is not always straight up you idiot!

Actually it is, that's sort of the definition.

Yeah, it is straight up, working that the surface is the, well, surface, and the core is well, the core.
Gravity pulls objects the source which would be the core. SO it does work vertically. North is not vertical someone apparently thinks it is.

now we get gibberish.

Quote from: General Douchebag on June 11, 2009, 10:18:40 AM

Quote from: danwood on June 11, 2009, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 11, 2009, 10:04:09 AM

shouldn't gravity work vertically in the round Earth theory. Someone got that fake badly wrong.

What do you mean?
Vertically from the centre of the earth so from the centre to the outer circumference. Vertical is not always straight up you idiot!

Actually it is, that's sort of the definition.

Yeah, it is straight up, working that the surface is the, well, surface, and the core is well, the core.
Gravity pulls objects the source which would be the core. SO it does work vertically. North is not vertical someone apparently thinks it is.

Yeah, that is the definition, it's also the exact opposite of what they said. However, in no theory is the core any kind of surface and in no FE-based theory does gravity exist.

Quote from: Art_Jimmerson on June 10, 2009, 11:45:21 AM

LOL at the c*nts on this site who can't accept they're wrong. What stupid f*ckers.

I think, someone falling at terminal velocity, encumbered by face protection, breathing equipment etc is hardly likely to be able to focus on the horizon with any accuracy. Not having experienced sky diving, I admit I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I don't.  Being experienced in what you do (and I doubt that any HALO jumpers are lacking in sky diving experience) means that you are better able to focus on things other than rushing towards the earth at a frightful velocity.  Besides, who says that they can't enjoy the view before they exit the plane?

Quote from: mazty88 on June 11, 2009, 10:22:18 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on June 11, 2009, 10:18:40 AM

Quote from: danwood on June 11, 2009, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 11, 2009, 10:04:09 AM

shouldn't gravity work vertically in the round Earth theory. Someone got that fake badly wrong.

What do you mean?
Vertically from the centre of the earth so from the centre to the outer circumference. Vertical is not always straight up you idiot!

Actually it is, that's sort of the definition.

Yeah, it is straight up, working that the surface is the, well, surface, and the core is well, the core.
Gravity pulls objects towards the source which would be the core. SO it does work vertically. North is not vertical someone as apparently someone thinks it is.

Yeah, that is the definition, it's also the exact opposite of what they said. However, in no theory is the core any kind of surface and in no FE-based theory does gravity exist.

I never said the core was the surface. The surface stops you being dragged to the core/the centre of gravity.

Ah yeah, I misread. My mistake there.

Besides, who says that they can't enjoy the view before they exit the plane?

Skydiving is brilliant in many ways.
The views in the plane before the free-fall are always spectacular.
Then when you jump the adrenaline rush from the free-fall is the best experience you could ever have.
Then obviously when the chute is open you have the awesome views as you glide back to earth with the aid of gravity!

The photos obviously show the edge of the flat Earth. On the second photo you can even see the icewall. 

Actually, looking again at the poorly faked photos, shouldn't gravity work vertically in the round Earth theory. Someone got that fake badly wrong.

Proof that it the photos are faked. Not to mention they clearly show it's round, so may hvae something medically wrong that needs checking on if you can't see that.
Or are simple claims enough to be considered fact around here?

I do notice that the FE guys havent posted photos from high skydiving of a flat horizon.

Photos aren't proof either way, it would be hypocritical of us to use them and discount yours.

A skydiver yesterday.


another skydiver


and another, here you can clearly see the curvature of the earth

ouch....

This should answer your question

Well I'm not allowed to trust my eyes and photos.
I assume as I cannot trust my eyes that also means my other senses are out. How can I tell if I am real, if I am not what am I doing, what am I sitting on?
Is this really a web forum?

How do I know I'm not in the matrix?

I would quite happily accept any valid photo that you could provide and passes my technological tests.
Generally looking at the colour histogram of an image you can easily tell a fake photo due to spikes in colour saturation etc.

I am a man of science so if you can prove to me the world is flat I will accept it as the way it is.
At the moment due to the huge amounts of evidence I can safely assume the world is spherical and I am real.

Quote from: General Douchebag on June 12, 2009, 09:29:37 AM

Photos aren't proof either way, it would be hypocritical of us to use them and discount yours.

No. See the thing is that photos can be discounted if there is evidence within the photos that it is fake. Google "how to spot a fake photo". Clues are non uniform contrast, non uniform perspective, admission of forgery, and so on...

Perhaps a more apt term for such a search would be "how to spot a badly faked photo", then. It's easy enough to do with the budget and equipment.

Photos cannot be discounted out of hand. That way is the way of the FEer.

What, the correct way? Thank you for your admission.

Well I'm not allowed to trust my eyes and photos.
I assume as I cannot trust my eyes that also means my other senses are out. How can I tell if I am real, if I am not what am I doing, what am I sitting on?
Is this really a web forum?

How do I know I'm not in the matrix?

You don't. That's a philosophical question, correct science takes such flaws as a given, which is the main fault of most, if not all REers who come here have.

Personally, I don't think there exists any conclusive proof for FE as of the time of typing. There are interesting arguments for either side, but nothing conclusive either way. I find FE more plausible, with more arguments based around inarguable maths and physics rather than photos and unverified claims. While some areas of FET are simply explanations intended to answer the questions of REers, and this often shows on deeper analysis, many principles are sound enough to make it more sensible to me than RE, that's my objective position.

I say objective not out of pretentiousness or arrogance, but because I, after a fit of unjustifiable, unresearched rage at FE like so many here, stripped emotion out of it and realised I have no stake in it either way and that I don't really care, which let me look at it more clearly.

(Sorry if the paragraphing looks odd, I added it in afterwards upon realising the wall of text.)

Photos aren't proof either way, it would be hypocritical of us to use them and discount yours.

Wrong. Look up photogrammetry. Photos are proof of geometry, therefore if a photo is real, information can be abstracted from it.

The second sentence in my post was in response to the second in yours. My apologies if I misled you.

This whole forum must be a massive troll attempt.

Noone can be this ignorant to believe that the world is flat after so much evidence proving them wrong.

This whole forum must be a massive troll attempt.

Noone can be this ignorant to believe that the world is flat after so much evidence proving them wrong.

I'm afraid you are wrong, they do believe the earth is flat. 

Any evidence that the world is round is dismisssed as fake or conspiracy work or whatever.

Okay say the Earth is flat. What are we sitting on?

Okay say the Earth is flat. What are we sitting on?

The shape of the earth doesn't change the surface material...