Meteor Showers

  • 111 Replies
  • 34380 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #30 on: May 19, 2017, 04:13:20 AM »
More being able to be seen =/= more intense.
Like I said, not when the definition of intense (at least for this) is based upon amount.

It's a specious argument and has absolutely bupkus relevance to the shape of the earth.
Thanks for finally admitting that. Now care to cut out the specious crap and address the argument?

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #31 on: May 19, 2017, 05:27:22 AM »

It's a specious argument and has absolutely bupkus relevance to the shape of the earth.
Thanks for finally admitting that. Now care to cut out the specious crap and address the argument?
I did not introduce the specious crap.

You need to take that up with the OP.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #32 on: May 19, 2017, 05:38:55 AM »
I did not introduce the specious crap.

You need to take that up with the OP.
No, you did.
You did so by repeatedly bitching about what is meant by intensity rather than addressing the actual argument made.

It wasn't even the OP that brought up the intensity.

*

Sam Hill

  • 644
  • +1/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2017, 09:09:44 AM »
More being able to be seen =/= more intense.

And if I see more it does not mean more intense.
Enough already!

Have you got anything to say about the fact that meteor showers have a larger number of visible meteors per hour after midnight, or do you intend to continue arguing about people's choice of vocabulary?
Yeah.
More being able to be seen =/= more intense.

Reading comprehension fail.  Perhaps I need to be more clear:

Please drop the vocabulary choice issue.

How about returning to the issue of why there are more meteors visible after midnight than before midnight.  How could that occur on a flat earth?  On the Round Earth it is explained by orbital direction, but that mechanism is not applicable to FE.

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2017, 09:22:59 AM »
No, you did.
No.

The specious crap is:

Scheduled phenomena = shape of earth.

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #35 on: May 19, 2017, 09:29:14 AM »
How about returning to the issue of why there are more meteors visible after midnight than before midnight.  How could that occur on a flat earth?  On the Round Earth it is explained by orbital direction, but that mechanism is not applicable to FE.
Again, it is starting to get more dark out for one, therefore you will be able to see more.

The Earth is not moving.

The objects that are moving are able to be seen more clearly and identified.

Whether a cloud goes over me or I go under a cloud...

Honestly, you guys arguments are getting weak.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • +0/-0
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #36 on: May 19, 2017, 09:41:46 AM »
I think clinging to the idea that you are seeing more meteors after midnight because it is darker is pretty weak.

Got any figures for that?

No.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45077
  • +87/-101
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #37 on: May 19, 2017, 09:50:22 AM »
No, you did.
No.

The specious crap is:

Scheduled phenomena = shape of earth.
Not quite.  It's more like:

Scheduled phenomena is easily explained by the round earth and heliocentric solar system.

Flat earth and geocentric solar system?  Not so much.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Sam Hill

  • 644
  • +1/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #38 on: May 19, 2017, 09:52:30 AM »
"More dark" after midnight?  That's your claim?  It's just as dark between 10 pm and midnight as it is from midnight to 2 am, so that doesn't explain it.

Also, meteor counts are not based solely on eyewitness reports, various organizations also conduct radar counts, which corroborate the after midnight > before midnight phenomenon.  Also, ham radio operators use the ionization trails to greatly extend their range, and guess what time of day that works best?  After midnight.

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #39 on: May 19, 2017, 09:53:18 AM »
I think clinging to the idea that you are seeing more meteors after midnight because it is darker is pretty weak.

Got any figures for that?

No.
You are claiming that as surroundings become darker, any objects possibly emitting or reflecting light would not become more visible?

Did you eat a stale banana prior to making this outlandish claim?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 03:36:49 PM by totallackey »

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2017, 09:54:48 AM »
"More dark" after midnight?  That's your claim?  It's just as dark between 10 pm and midnight as it is from midnight to 2 am, so that doesn't explain it.
No it isn't.

It progressively gets darker until it gets darkest right before dawn.
Also, meteor counts are not based solely on eyewitness reports, various organizations also conduct radar counts, which corroborate the after midnight > before midnight phenomenon.  Also, ham radio operators use the ionization trails to greatly extend their range, and guess what time of day that works best?  After midnight.
Why?

Less overall radiation the sun in the area interfering with the upper atmoplane, thus also able to reveal more of these objects at that time, not signifying an increase in intensity, just an increase in the ability to detect.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 03:37:48 PM by totallackey »

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2017, 10:01:26 AM »
No, you did.
No.

The specious crap is:

Scheduled phenomena = shape of earth.
Not quite.  It's more like:

Scheduled phenomena is easily explained by the round earth and heliocentric solar system.

Flat earth and geocentric solar system?  Not so much.
It is not necessary for the shape of the Earth to be taken into account to predict these things.

If it was, then ancient cultures would not have made accurate calendars.

Quit drawing false conclusions.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2017, 10:10:44 AM »
It is not necessary for the shape of the Earth to be taken into account to predict these things.

If it was, then ancient cultures would not have made accurate calendars.

Quit drawing false conclusions.

Stop deflecting. Round earth goes around the sun and runs into comet trails producing meteor showers on a timely basis. Makes sense. Your turn. Explain predictable meteor showers on a flat earth.

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2017, 10:20:26 AM »
Stop deflecting. Round earth goes around the sun and runs into comet trails producing meteor showers on a timely basis. Makes sense. Your turn. Explain predictable meteor showers on a flat earth.
Meteors and comets make regular appearances over our head in the night sky.

Some make annual appearances, some don't.

Some have stopped appearing altogether.

Flat Earth does not move.

These objects do.

Makes sense.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 10:31:58 AM by totallackey »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45077
  • +87/-101
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #44 on: May 19, 2017, 10:31:42 AM »
No, you did.
No.

The specious crap is:

Scheduled phenomena = shape of earth.
Not quite.  It's more like:

Scheduled phenomena is easily explained by the round earth and heliocentric solar system.

Flat earth and geocentric solar system?  Not so much.
It is not necessary for the shape of the Earth to be taken into account to predict these things.

If it was, then ancient cultures would not have made accurate calendars.

Quit drawing false conclusions.
I didn't say that the shape of the earth was necessary for predictions.  All you have to do is carefully record when various events occur for a while to get an idea of when they're likely to occur again.

I simply said that round earth/heliocentrism explains the cyclic nature of those events better than flat earth/geocentrism.

So quit building straw men.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #45 on: May 19, 2017, 10:33:32 AM »
I simply said that round earth/heliocentrism explains the cyclic nature of those events better than flat earth/geocentrism.
Another subjective claim.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #46 on: May 19, 2017, 11:03:11 AM »
I simply said that round earth/heliocentrism explains the cyclic nature of those events better than flat earth/geocentrism.
Another subjective claim.

Well given the fact you have yet to provide an explanation better than "some make regular appearances, some make annual appearances, watcha gonna do?", it's really not a subjective claim.

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #47 on: May 19, 2017, 11:13:13 AM »
Well given the fact you have yet to provide an explanation better than "some make regular appearances, some make annual appearances, watcha gonna do?", it's really not a subjective claim.
Point out where you, the diapered penguin,or anyone else in this thread have ever done any different in this thread...

The whole OP is a subjective claim.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #48 on: May 19, 2017, 12:14:10 PM »
The whole OP is a subjective claim.

Except it's not.

Well given the fact you have yet to provide an explanation better than "some make regular appearances, some make annual appearances, watcha gonna do?", it's really not a subjective claim.
Point out where you, the diapered penguin,or anyone else in this thread have ever done any different in this thread...
  |
  |
  V
Round earth goes around the sun and runs into comet trails producing meteor showers on a timely basis. Makes sense. Your turn.

Try again.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • +0/-0
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #49 on: May 19, 2017, 12:17:28 PM »
I think clinging to the idea that you are seeing more meteors after midnight because it is darker is pretty weak.

Got any figures for that?

No.
You are claiming that as surroundings become darker, any possible objects emitting light would not become more visible?

Did you eat a stale banana prior to making this outlandish claim?

Did you forget to wear your reading glasses when you read what I wrote?
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45077
  • +87/-101
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #50 on: May 19, 2017, 01:01:15 PM »
I simply said that round earth/heliocentrism explains the cyclic nature of those events better than flat earth/geocentrism.
Another subjective claim.
Do tell.  Which flat earth/geocentric model do you believe explains the cyclic nature of meteor showers better than the round earth/heliocentric model and why?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Sam Hill

  • 644
  • +1/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #51 on: May 19, 2017, 01:04:53 PM »
"More dark" after midnight?  That's your claim?  It's just as dark between 10 pm and midnight as it is from midnight to 2 am, so that doesn't explain it.
No it isn't.

It progressively gets darker until it gets darkest right before dawn.

This assertion is simply not true.  Consider for example the clear sky conditions forecast for an observatory near me:

The bottom row of boxes represent sky darkness, and the vertical red line is midnight.  Now, I know what your initial reaction is: "HA!  Darker after midnight!  I told you!"  That would be a childish way to claim victory, so please don't bother.  I think that since we are talking about the sun and its position in the sky we can all agree that "midnight" should be understood as referring to the halfway moment between the time of today's local solar zenith and tomorrow's local solar zenith (or easier to tell: halfway between sunset and sunrise, which can be seen in the image where sky darkness goes from yellow to blue), not the arbitrary time when clocks in the local time zone happen to hit 00:00.  So, looking at the hours before anti-zenith (the 23 and 00 hours) compared to the two hours after anti-zenith (the 01 and 02 hours) what do we see?  Equal darkness.

Also, meteor counts are not based solely on eyewitness reports, various organizations also conduct radar counts, which corroborate the after midnight > before midnight phenomenon.  Also, ham radio operators use the ionization trails to greatly extend their range, and guess what time of day that works best?  After midnight.
Why?

Less overall radiation in the area from the sun interfering with the upper atmoplane, thus also able to reveal more of these objects at that time, not signifying an increase in intensity, just an increase in the ability to detect.

I know that sounds plausible as an explanation for the ham radio thing, but the effect of solar radiation is very different from the effect of ionization trails left by meteors, so that's no good for your theory.  And radar works just fine under the full sun, so that's also no good for your theory.

*

Zaphod

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #52 on: May 19, 2017, 02:09:44 PM »

It progressively gets darker until it gets darkest right before dawn.



Bollocks!

It's darkest at local midnight when you are on the opposite side of the earth from the sun.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #53 on: May 19, 2017, 02:45:01 PM »
No.
The specious crap is:
Scheduled phenomena = shape of earth.
No. The specious crap is you bitching about the meaning of words.
The meaningful argument is that the RE model is capable of accurately predicting something while the FE model has no explanatory power, indicating that the RE model is likely true.

That isn't specious at all.

Again, it is starting to get more dark out for one, therefore you will be able to see more.
No. It isn't getting more dark.
Mid night isn't magically darker than earlier on in the night.

Honestly, you guys arguments are getting weak.
No, that would be your arguments, right from the start.
It progressively gets darker until it gets darkest right before dawn.
No. It doesn't.
If you wish to assert such crap you will need to back it up.

Why?

Less overall radiation in the area from the sun interfering with the upper atmoplane, thus also able to reveal more of these objects at that time, not signifying an increase in intensity, just an increase in the ability to detect.
No. It is the radiation that is there that lets them extend their range.
The sun doesn't interfere with radar detection of objects anyway.

It is not necessary for the shape of the Earth to be taken into account to predict these things.
If it was, then ancient cultures would not have made accurate calendars.
Quit drawing false conclusions.
Their model was effectively a tiny portion of the RE model.
They had the stars on a celestial sphere which rotated about Earth, such that the sun went below Earth.
Stop acting like the FE model of the ancients is anything like the FE model of today.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3546
  • +0/-1
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #54 on: May 19, 2017, 03:26:12 PM »
This year, the night of August 12th, sunset is at 7:50 p.m.  Sunrise on the 13th will be at 6:20 a.m.  Making the darkest part of the night somewhere in the 1:05 a.m. range.  Not right before dawn.  Another idiot thinking a metaphor equals reality.  "Always darkest before dawn", means things always get better.  There is hope, even in the worst of circumstances. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/darkest-hour.html
Using this time, this means in my locality, at 1:05 a.m on August 12th 2017, I will be on the opposite side of the Earth than where the Sun is viewable.  If the meteor intensity increases... oh wait I used that intensity word... If more meteors occur after 1:05 am than before then it supports the Spherical predictions.  Notice I am not saying this one tiny fact, that will be true BTW, is proof, only it supports the theory.  There is nothing in the FE idea that posits this prediction with any explanation of how or why this may happen, while the explanation that the spheroid model gives comes complete with why, how, when, etc.  This is true across more aspects of reality when questioning the validity of the FE model than I wish to try to count.  FE is based on emotions with no clear explanations that do not counter other explanations, RE is based on facts with explanations reinforcing other explanations.

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #55 on: May 19, 2017, 03:40:43 PM »
The whole OP is a subjective claim.

You are right ...it is...and I need to remain subjective.
FTFY.

No need to thank me.
Therefore, let me repeat my OP...NUH uh!
Yeah, nothing subjective about that...
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 03:50:17 PM by totallackey »

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #56 on: May 19, 2017, 03:47:14 PM »
"More dark" after midnight?  That's your claim?  It's just as dark between 10 pm and midnight as it is from midnight to 2 am, so that doesn't explain it.
No it isn't.

It progressively gets darker until it gets darkest right before dawn.

This assertion is simply not true.  Consider for example the clear sky conditions forecast for an observatory near me:

The bottom row of boxes represent sky darkness, and the vertical red line is midnight.  Now, I know what your initial reaction is: "HA!  Darker after midnight!  I told you!"  That would be a childish way to claim victory, so please don't bother.  I think that since we are talking about the sun and its position in the sky we can all agree that "midnight" should be understood as referring to the halfway moment between the time of today's local solar zenith and tomorrow's local solar zenith (or easier to tell: halfway between sunset and sunrise, which can be seen in the image where sky darkness goes from yellow to blue), not the arbitrary time when clocks in the local time zone happen to hit 00:00.  So, looking at the hours before anti-zenith (the 23 and 00 hours) compared to the two hours after anti-zenith (the 01 and 02 hours) what do we see?  Equal darkness.
No, I think we should stick with the actual graph clearly demonstrating it does get darkest just before dawn.

Thanks for your support.
I know that sounds plausible as an explanation for the ham radio thing, but the effect of solar radiation is very different from the effect of ionization trails left by meteors, so that's no good for your theory.  And radar works just fine under the full sun, so that's also no good for your theory.
If you are now going to claim there is no increased interference with any type of waves, even radar, during the daytime hours, I do not know what to tell you except you need to learn more.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3546
  • +0/-1
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #57 on: May 19, 2017, 03:47:27 PM »
The whole OP is a subjective claim.

You are right ...it is...and I need to remain subjective.

Therefore, let me repeat it.
NUH uh!
Yeah, nothing subjective about that...

This is akin to a lie.  Purposely attributing words to someone else that they did not say, misusing the quote functions of the site to make it appear that they actually said it, in order to support your lack of an intellectual response is dishonest and shows how desperate you are to cling to a failing idea that you personally do not subscribe to. 
Try not to act as stupidly next time, it only worsens your persona's position.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3546
  • +0/-1
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #58 on: May 19, 2017, 03:50:24 PM »
"More dark" after midnight?  That's your claim?  It's just as dark between 10 pm and midnight as it is from midnight to 2 am, so that doesn't explain it.
No it isn't.

It progressively gets darker until it gets darkest right before dawn.

This assertion is simply not true.  Consider for example the clear sky conditions forecast for an observatory near me:

The bottom row of boxes represent sky darkness, and the vertical red line is midnight.  Now, I know what your initial reaction is: "HA!  Darker after midnight!  I told you!"  That would be a childish way to claim victory, so please don't bother.  I think that since we are talking about the sun and its position in the sky we can all agree that "midnight" should be understood as referring to the halfway moment between the time of today's local solar zenith and tomorrow's local solar zenith (or easier to tell: halfway between sunset and sunrise, which can be seen in the image where sky darkness goes from yellow to blue), not the arbitrary time when clocks in the local time zone happen to hit 00:00.  So, looking at the hours before anti-zenith (the 23 and 00 hours) compared to the two hours after anti-zenith (the 01 and 02 hours) what do we see?  Equal darkness.
No, I think we should stick with the actual graph clearly demonstrating it does get darkest just before dawn.

Thanks for your support.
I know that sounds plausible as an explanation for the ham radio thing, but the effect of solar radiation is very different from the effect of ionization trails left by meteors, so that's no good for your theory.  And radar works just fine under the full sun, so that's also no good for your theory.
If you are now going to claim there is no increased interference with any type of waves, even radar, during the daytime hours, I do not know what to tell you except you need to learn more.
Instead of claiming others need to learn something, please learn how radar works.  Particularly pay attention to wavelength differences between radar and visible light and study interference also.  Again, just weakening your credibility with every personal attack.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45077
  • +87/-101
Re: Meteor Showers
« Reply #59 on: May 19, 2017, 03:50:55 PM »
The whole OP is a subjective claim.

You are right ...it is...and I need to remain subjective.

Therefore, let me repeat it.
NUH uh!
Yeah, nothing subjective about that...

This is akin to a lie.  Purposely attributing words to someone else that they did not say, misusing the quote functions of the site to make it appear that they actually said it, in order to support your lack of an intellectual response is dishonest and shows how desperate you are to cling to a failing idea that you personally do not subscribe to. 
Try not to act as stupidly next time, it only worsens your persona's position.
Are you kidding?  That's his shtick.

Well, his and Papa Legba's.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.