Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tintagel

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: November 04, 2015, 12:04:01 AM »
I suggest you look up some scientific litterature.

To what end? This forum has proved time and again that scientific literature gets treated the same way as any social data does- interpreted loosely enough to satisfy any ends you like.
Shit, you could probably do a bit of digging and find something to support the theory that the earth is a tetrahedron made of fermented crab apples.

I'm a dedicated round-earther. I don't believe for a second that the earth is flat. All I'm saying by referencing the elephant and blind man story, is that individual perception is not necessarily a firm basis for truth.

Individual observation, or personal interpretation of said observation doesn't necessarily make for scientific data.

Sometimes the truth can't be directly observed.

Really? Proven huh? Are you one of those who thinks all space travel is faked too?
My first post was not trolling at all, it was sarcasm to imply how flat earthers think science works, just because they don't understand science they get scared of it, I don't blant them. But you can't read every article posted on "I fucking love science" because that's a lot of sci-fi speculations, other science media too. Try gong to a library instead, maybe you'll find some proper science papers there.

Above: evidence that round earthers are so blinded by their own virtiol that they don't even realize when they're arguing with another round earther.

2

No, because in this case the shape of earth doesn't matter.

So, what is it that makes you believe that the earth is flat?

No, observation makes me believe the earth is flat.  Since star charts work either way, they have no bearing on my opinion.

3
Are star charts correct when the night sky faces a different part of the universe every six months?

This question is about all stars in the universe that are visible on earth.
I am looking for people who checked if the star charts Stellarium (and other sky maps) are showing (at the same location) on the 21st of December and the 21st of June are 100% accurate and consistent with all the movements of the spinning and flying tilted earth through space?
Please keep in mind that the night sky is facing a completely different part of the universe every six months.

I believe you will find that they are, but let's make this an experiment.

Download Stellarium (I will do the same) and let's look at the position of the stars tonight, November 2, 2015, at say 8pm.  Since we presumably live on different parts of the earth, our night skies will be a little different from each other, but as long as your copy of Stellarium (or your star chart, if you'd prefer to use one) accurately predicts your night sky tonight, we're good.

In six months (that is, May 2 2016), the night side of the earth should, as you say, face a different part of the universe.  Use stellarium to predict the position of the stars that night at a given time (probably choose a later time, say 9pm or later, since days are longer in May).  We can post results here, and then we will determine once and for all the answer to your question.

Thanks, I downloaded the program already and will see if it would work.
Don't you think that it's weird that everything is working fine for the model of a tilted spinning and flying ball (and galaxies) without any inaccuracy or inconsistency? Do you still believe that the geocentric ball-model is incorrect?

No, because in this case the shape of earth doesn't matter.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun
« on: November 02, 2015, 08:46:43 PM »
I have been reading about the "spotlight sun"
How does the spotlight create enough heat to melt Tarmac, buckle railway lines, what is it's energy source?

Unknown.  There have been several assumptions made about the sun's energy source even among round earth scientists.  In the 1800s, it was presumed that the gas pressure and the sun's own gravity created the heat.  The mathematics involved implied that the age of the sun was 32 million years.

Today, the assumption that hydrogen fusion is the source of the energy implies that the age of the sun is about 4-5 billion years. 

Both were considered correct at the time, neither may be accurate.  We just don't know. (and that's okay!)

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 02, 2015, 08:41:49 PM »
Perhaps this will help you visualize what is going on:


This is a star finder.  The white part is a disc of paper printed with all the stars visible in the northern hemisphere.  The blue paper on top of it has an oval-shaped hole representing the night sky.

To use it, you align the date and time that you are observing, and the part visible through the oval is your sky on that day and time.  It accounts for the face that the night sky in July is different from the night sky in January.  To see how, see where "January" is on the outer dial?  imagine turning the disc until July is in its position.  This will show you the corresponding sky six months later. 

Here's the important part: see the little brass thing in the center?  That's the pin that the whole chart rotates on.  It holds the chart together.  It is also the position of polaris.  Notice how no matter how far you spin the dial, that brass pin is always there.  Polaris is always visible. 

This chart works no matter what the earth's shape is.

6
Are star charts correct when the night sky faces a different part of the universe every six months?

This question is about all stars in the universe that are visible on earth.
I am looking for people who checked if the star charts Stellarium (and other sky maps) are showing (at the same location) on the 21st of December and the 21st of June are 100% accurate and consistent with all the movements of the spinning and flying tilted earth through space?
Please keep in mind that the night sky is facing a completely different part of the universe every six months.

I believe you will find that they are, but let's make this an experiment.

Download Stellarium (I will do the same) and let's look at the position of the stars tonight, November 2, 2015, at say 8pm.  Since we presumably live on different parts of the earth, our night skies will be a little different from each other, but as long as your copy of Stellarium (or your star chart, if you'd prefer to use one) accurately predicts your night sky tonight, we're good.

In six months (that is, May 2 2016), the night side of the earth should, as you say, face a different part of the universe.  Use stellarium to predict the position of the stars that night at a given time (probably choose a later time, say 9pm or later, since days are longer in May).  We can post results here, and then we will determine once and for all the answer to your question.


7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 02, 2015, 12:49:40 AM »
Did you understand the part:

The movement of the dark side of the spinning and flying earth to the other side of the sun every six months (pointing to a different part of the night sky/universe)

They did.  They are saying that the distance to polaris is too great for an change in position of 2AU to matter.  The Greeks also couldn't see any stellar parallax, that's what led them to believe the earth was stationary, the common belief being that nothing could be so far away as to demonstrate no observable parallax.

I support FET, but the lack of parallax of polaris isn't a good angle, because the RET math works here as well.  Now, if one could prove that the stars are closer than RET says they are (as the Greeks believed) then we'd have something.

How is it possible that you can see a star (polaris) at the same position if the night side of earth is facing a completely different part of the universe every six months?

Polaris is situated over the North Pole.  It is always visible because it is aligned with the axis of rotation.  Both on a flat and round earth, this is always true.

You are not answering the question. Do you understand that during the night you should be seeing other stars than six months earlier as the earth travelled to the other side of the sun?

How is it possible that you can see a star (polaris) at the same position if the night side of earth is facing a completely different part of the universe every six months?

Other stars should be visible as well which were not visible six months earlier.

I am answering the question.  It doesn't matter which direction the earth is rotated, no matter if it's flat or round.  Polaris is always over the north pole.  This never changes.  The earth may be facing a different direction, but the axis of rotation is not.  The axis of rotation does not move, so polaris is always situated above it, so polaris is always visible.  So are the stars surrounding polaris, like Ursa Major and Ursa Minor.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 01, 2015, 09:23:36 PM »
Did you understand the part:

The movement of the dark side of the spinning and flying earth to the other side of the sun every six months (pointing to a different part of the night sky/universe)

They did.  They are saying that the distance to polaris is too great for an change in position of 2AU to matter.  The Greeks also couldn't see any stellar parallax, that's what led them to believe the earth was stationary, the common belief being that nothing could be so far away as to demonstrate no observable parallax.

I support FET, but the lack of parallax of polaris isn't a good angle, because the RET math works here as well.  Now, if one could prove that the stars are closer than RET says they are (as the Greeks believed) then we'd have something.

How is it possible that you can see a star (polaris) at the same position if the night side of earth is facing a completely different part of the universe every six months?

Polaris is situated over the North Pole.  It is always visible because it is aligned with the axis of rotation.  Both on a flat and round earth, this is always true.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question about Aurora Austrius.
« on: November 01, 2015, 07:23:08 PM »
The standard rationale for the Aurora is synchotron radiation, that is, electrons accelerated into tight spirals around magnetic field lines.  I haven't really given it much thought (because electricity and magnetism aren't my areas of expertise), but I don't see why this shouldn't be true on a flat earth.  The mag. field lines converge at the north pole, so aurora appear there as expected, but since the south pole surrounds us, aurorae there are more rare.  Seems to make sense.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 01, 2015, 07:17:18 PM »
Did you understand the part:

The movement of the dark side of the spinning and flying earth to the other side of the sun every six months (pointing to a different part of the night sky/universe)

They did.  They are saying that the distance to polaris is too great for an change in position of 2AU to matter.  The Greeks also couldn't see any stellar parallax, that's what led them to believe the earth was stationary, the common belief being that nothing could be so far away as to demonstrate no observable parallax.

I support FET, but the lack of parallax of polaris isn't a good angle, because the RET math works here as well.  Now, if one could prove that the stars are closer than RET says they are (as the Greeks believed) then we'd have something. 

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBTQIAA
« on: October 30, 2015, 07:45:01 PM »
2. Dead people aren't people. They are dead. They are no more people than a pork chop is a pig. They are just a body. You don't need consent from a fleshlight, why should you need it from a dead body?

Actually dead people are people. Luckily, as a sane person, other sane people agree with me, and therefore me saying they are still people is correct, while what you're saying remains to be nonsense.

At what point during decomposition does a dead person cease to be a person?

Depends whether you like your sexual partners firm or soft 'n juicy, I suppose.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBTQIAA
« on: October 30, 2015, 01:50:21 PM »
My view is that the state needs to stop regulating private sexual matters altogether, except where it stands to do harm to others (such as reproductive incest, where the child is at higher risk of genetic problems). I don't really care if that makes me an Ally or not.

Good enough for me, and I agree.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBTQIAA
« on: October 30, 2015, 12:35:42 PM »
Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.

Why on earth should anal intercourse be illegal?  If it isn't your thing, don't do it. Simple as that. 
Buggery laws were introduced in the 1533 in order to curb the syphilis problem spreading throughout Europe. It was a disease brought back from the new world native Americans and it was rampant. Even back then, most people knew anal 'sex' spreads disease must easier than proper sex. So it was outlawed as a public health measure. I have posted stats on this before. Stats from the ONS that show you are 10 times more likely to get HIV from buggery with a condom than you are from regular sex without as a woman. The arse is a giant sponge to recycle nutrients and is particularly prone to disease. It also rips and tears in a way a vagina won't. So whilst you 'fail to see' because you live in la la dream world where any kind of sexual deviance should be praised so you can indulge in it happily, the fact is, it is and always has been a public health menace.

This is the reason African countries are so reluctant to legalise homosexuality. They are worried about a new resurgence in the AIDS epidemic. And then you have an idiot like Obama who doesn't give two craps about the lives of African people saying those countries are violating human rights just so he can bully them into anti-competitive trade deals and one-sided sanctions.

No.  If done with the proper care, none of the health risks you mentioned are a factor.  If someone believes everything they see in porn (just shove it in there, mate!), then of course there are risks. Don't do that!

The solution to this problem isn't making butt stuff illegal.  The solution is better sex education (so people understand how to do these things without risk of injury or infection) and better healthcare (if something does go wrong) - two things that African countries and the fine people in your dream home of 1533 didn't care so much about.  I like to think we've matured as a species since then. 

Well.  Those of us who aren't Thork have matured, anyway. 

EDITED TO ADD:
Thork, Can we add another letter for people that don't really care one way or the other but if pressed would agree that the LGBTQIAA community should have equal rights?

That would count as Ally, the final A, Pongo.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBTQIAA
« on: October 30, 2015, 10:01:37 AM »
Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.

Why on earth should anal intercourse be illegal?  If it isn't your thing, don't do it. Simple as that. 

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBTQIAA
« on: October 30, 2015, 12:54:58 AM »
I'd like to add that there isn't an "S" for straight because the "A" for ally implies straight.  We don't have a letter for straight people who aren't allies.

I'm pretty sure it's related to consent. For example, a beast can't consent to getting sexed on. Although, they can't consent to being slaughtered for food either. So I don't know actually. I guess humans just do whatever the hell they want to do and find any means to justify it. I guess that's your answer.

But yes, I agree that the queer movement is highly hypocritical. To them, tolerance is a one-way street. You have to be tolerant of them, but they don't have to be tolerant of the fact that you disagree with them.

For my part, I don't care what kind of anatomy you have or who you like to sleep with.  This, however:

I can't be the only person who just thinks sod the lot of them. If you aren't straight, you are probably up to no good and it doesn't benefit mankind or society in any way whatsoever.

I don't think I'm hypocritical in the least for calling out this kind of generalization as being irresponsible and provably inaccurate.

16
I think the existence of the watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.  I think there was/is an architect.  I do not think there is any evidence to imply that said architect is a deity in the supernatural sense.

At the risk of causing any Tintagels to bristle, I wish to say this.
I have read many insightful posts by you. Thank you for your time.

My point is, such an insidious form of control as a watch is sort of a contrary example.
Clearly a watch was made by a man.
A watch does exactly was it was meant to do. Mechanically. It is a fancy "Stick in the mud"
It will never be any more than it is. A timekeeper.

My Dogs too are all they were meant to be. BUT, they have life. Life is something special. No man will make life
as far as I can tell. My dogs, with love and care will perform a good service to me. And will offer me love in
proportion to that which I give them.
And as my perceptions reach out beyond this physical plane, and people distance themselves from me, their companionship is most welcome.
People tell me to wear a tin foil hat. I tell them that will just make me an antenna. They say just ground
it to your flat earth, you will be OK. (Wonder if that is true?)

I believe I was created in the image of GOD.
My purpose is to strive to be more than I am. Really not hard for me, as there is much room for improvement.
My spirit resonates in such a way, I see many new things I can comfortably call GOD.

It is available to all (Free), BUT, costs everything we know.
I know most here know that feeling.

Be well fellow thinkers.

Thank GOD for free choice. We all have a purpose.

Not bristling at all, we all have to figure out faith for ourselves. 

Other people's belief systems don't bother me at all, as long as I'm not told I need to alter my values and behaviors conform to a belief system that isn't mine.  I'm pretty easy to get along with.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 29, 2015, 02:34:54 PM »
I suppose if your definition of "knowing" can only be gained through direct observation by an individual than what do any of us really "know"?

Modern humans and our civilization relies on us being able to use more than just direct observation -we can also use logic and reason.

You're almost there.  So close.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions for Flat-Earthers
« on: October 29, 2015, 10:14:27 AM »
This is not in the debate section so I can't explain the real reason. But you have to realize that all these flat earth theories are made up to fit conditions IF the earth was flat.

Allow me to tell you a story.  In the 1800s, no one used nuclear reactions to explain where all the energy the sun produces comes from.  How could they?  Instead, they presumed that the energy came from the gravitational collapse of the sun itself.  They had models for that.  And they could use them to estimate the sun's age.  I won't repeat the whole derivation for you here (though I can, I have it in a notebook somewhere), but they came up, using what appeared to be very sound methods and correct mathematics, with an age of about 32 million years for the sun.

Now, this was understandably a controversy because there were those who claimed the earth was older than that.  But it was nonetheless the "accepted" number because of the made up condition they placed on the sun (that its energy comes from its own internal pressure due to gravity).

Today, they have come up with the idea of nuclear reactions, and have used that condition to arrive at an age of about 4-5 billion years for the sun.  Welp, this is sure older than the earth, so we call it golden, but the only thing that's changed is that someone made another condition fit the situation.  No one's been there.  We can't directly measure hydrogen fusion in the sun's core, only the energy it allegedly produces.

In recent centuries, physicists made up a thing called aether to explain how light propagated through a vacuum.  Today, they've made up a thing called dark matter to account for calculations for masses and the rotation of clusters and galaxies showing far more mass than observed.  "Accepted" science is full of examples of a condition being invented and forced to match observations.

We say the earth is flat because the earth appears to be flat. Yet when we discuss the nature of the cosmos starting from this assumption, we're making things up and forcing them to fit our model, and that somehow lacks credibility?

Hello pot, this is kettle.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 29, 2015, 01:57:28 AM »
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?


I think that you must have not really spent much time looking.

Almost all well educated people have known that the Earth is round for at least 2000 years probably more.
The only people who thought otherwise where more influenced by religion than science.

So you think that Russia and China (who do not have particularly close relations with us -particularly 40 years ago) as well as the other 40 or more nations which have some space activity are all in cahoots in this plot?

The idea of a spherical earth came from Ancient Greece.  They believed the earth must be a perfect sphere, because they were keen on the idea of perfect geometries.  They believed that all of the celestial bodies must be perfect spheres, and therefore Earth must be as well.  They were wrong, but the idea caught on.  The reason almost all "well educated people" believe anything of the sort is because it's the most popular idea at the time.

How do you know the earth is round?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.

I know from personal experience that what I have been taught works in the real world- the round world. And it wouldn't work if the earth was flat. I am sure that workers in the real world could give you lots of reasons why they know the earth is round. To get into reality, most people regard flat earth as something silly. Check some other threads if you don't believe this.

Oh, I'm aware people believe I'm silly.  I've been here a while.  Doesn't bother me much. :)

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 29, 2015, 01:56:16 AM »


Soo,,,then they were a travelled people,  travellers not only saw far away things coming over the horizon at sea but saw constellations rising or falling in respect to the horizon as they travelled north or south.

Hardly surprising, objects farther away converge to the vanishing point at the horizon.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >