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 - Rounder

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 19, 2017, 12:54:15 PM »
Well, they could start with your proof that the earth isn't a globe.  "Have you ever seen these 'dragons' that Rounder claims to have?  No?  Okay then, have you ever seen ANY dragons, anywhere?  No?  Well, why do you believe Rounder then?"  Plus, if this is what it takes to calm their kids down, I bet my neighbors would be willing to fly a drone into my 'dragon barns' to show the kids that they're empty, no dragons at all.  Even if it meant losing their drone.

How would that prove that there are no such things as dragons? You see them all the time on TV and there are rumors around school that there is a dragon living in the forest.

TV (photos are easily faked) and schoolyard gossip (shills) will not make my neighbors spend a gazillion dollars building dragon barns and buying dragon food to compete in a dragon arms race when they know there's no such thing as dragons.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 16, 2017, 04:48:59 AM »
"No one would believe?"  The FE side claims that the whole world already believes things the FE find ridiculous, why would no one believe this?  Airplanes reach targets thousands of miles away slowly; I don't think anyone would have trouble accepting that a missile could go higher and faster in order to reach that same target quickly.

Airplanes fly via lift. Rockets follow a ballistic trajectory, and a rocket full of rocket fuel only has enough power for about 100 miles before it starts dropping. Unless it gets into earth orbit or on a sub-orbital velocity, it's not going to go very far.

Yes, thank you Tom, I actually do know how rockets and airplanes work.  What I'm saying is that on a flat earth where nothing goes to space, the US and Soviet ICBM's DID NOT GO TO SPACE either.  Therefore, it must be true (on a flat earth) that missiles get where they're going by flying high and fast in the thin upper atmosphere, and if you are China or India why not just say so instead of joining the US and USSR in their big space lie?  Most people have only a vague idea of how things work outside their own areas of expertise, and most FE think the average person is pretty easily fooled by the round earth you find so preposterous; why wouldn't those same sheeple easily accept yet another preposterous explanation, this time covering a false description of how ICBM's work?


Quote
Quote
If I pretend I have a back yard full of fire-breathing dragons threatening the kids next door, the neighbors wouldn't feel the need to also pretend to have their own dragons in an effort to comfort their kids; they would prove that dragons aren't a thing and therefore I don't actually have any.

How are you supposed to prove to your kids that dragons don't exist? That's called proving a negative and is incredibly difficult/impossible.

Well, they could start with your proof that the earth isn't a globe.  "Have you ever seen these 'dragons' that Rounder claims to have?  No?  Okay then, have you ever seen ANY dragons, anywhere?  No?  Well, why do you believe Rounder then?"  Plus, if this is what it takes to calm their kids down, I bet my neighbors would be willing to fly a drone into my 'dragon barns' to show the kids that they're empty, no dragons at all.  Even if it meant losing their drone.


Quote
Quote
By the same token, if China or North Korea could prove that the nations with ICBMs are making the whole thing up, there is no need to pretend to have ICBMs of their own, because they aren't even a real thing (in that world)!

If North Korea said that our ICBM system was fake, how do you really see it playing out?

That would be far and away the most reasonable lie in the collection of crap the "Dear Leader" feeds his people.  I think it would be quite eagerly accepted. 

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 15, 2017, 06:13:50 AM »
you could claim a missile flies high up and far away without needing to also claim it can reach space.
That's not really possible and no one would believe you. Hitler's V2 rockets could reach space, but only had an operational range of about 200 miles.
The rockets need to get into an orbital or sub-orbital path and velocity in order to hit targets that are thousands of miles away.
"No one would believe?"  The FE side claims that the whole world already believes things the FE find ridiculous, why would no one believe this?  Airplanes reach targets thousands of miles away slowly; I don't think anyone would have trouble accepting that a missile could go higher and faster in order to reach that same target quickly.


If you don't claim to have ICBMs then everyone in your country is going to be really uncomfortable thinking that other countries have ICBMs pointed at them and that their country is defenseless, no matter how much their leaders shout "it's all fake" into the air. Come on, it is pretty obvious what path the state would go.
If I pretend I have a back yard full of fire-breathing dragons threatening the kids next door, the neighbors wouldn't feel the need to also pretend to have their own dragons in an effort to comfort their kids; they would prove that dragons aren't a thing and therefore I don't actually have any.  Then they would all make fun of all the money I'm spending on my ridiculous charade.

By the same token, if China or North Korea could prove that the nations with ICBMs are making the whole thing up, there is no need to pretend to have ICBMs of their own, because they aren't even a real thing (in that world)!

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:48:41 AM »
Your "spherical geometry" of the sky is difficult and hard to explain when challenged because it is fake.
One's inability to understand something does not prove it fake.  I truly don't understand how any modern person can believe in the flat earth, for example, but apparently THAT isn't fake.

I don't follow. What do you think things should look like?
I'm not the one who thinks moon angles don't make sense.  I think things SHOULD look exactly as they DO look, because I understand the geometry.  In the round-earth, far-away-sun, smaller-closer-moon system, the local horizon is not the correct reference against which the angles are measured.  The angle to the axis of the earth's rotation is the correct reference, and when you rotate about that axis the sun-moon angles resolve correctly.  On the flat earth, the local horizon is the worldwide reference, and you get strange angles everywhere except today's sub-solar latitude.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:28:57 AM »
Non-allied countries tend to cast doubt and skepticism on each other's space capabilities.

Why bother pretending to even have a space program?  It would be cheaper to expose the "fraud" of the big players.

Do you consider $18T cheap?  because that is what NASA and the gov't would have to answer for after the "lack of space" was exposed.  They would have to shutdown and all their subcontractors shutdown, the thousands of lost jobs and the law suits.  every "space" related program in every university and college would be shut down.  Then ultimately, the mighty question to all the 'space' people, "how have you been looking out into space and not known?"

It's bigger than just letting the cat-out-of-the-bag, way bigger.
Exactly my point.  It's hella expensive to run a space program, if you are China or India (for example) it would be cheaper to NOT play with rockets and instead spend a small amount of money debunking the US program.  Nobody does this.  Why not?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:26:31 AM »
That would preclude you from claiming to have ICBMs that can destroy any country at the push of a button (therefore untouchable), and you risk that you will not be believed.
Nonsense, you could claim a missile flies high up and far away without needing to also claim it can reach space.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:17:51 AM »
The sky is not a sphere which things rest against.
True, it is much larger and more complex than that simplistic image, as any RE will tell you. 

It's also not a two dimensional object like a photograph, which invalidates the method of moon angle measurement attempted by the guy in your thread-opening video.  Spherical Geometry is difficult and occasionally counterintuitive.

Your video accidentally undermines the flat earth.  The guy claims there is something wrong with the moon angle, but he leaves unspoken the rest of the sentence: "if the earth-moon-sun system is the way I imagine it: flat earth, small nearby sun, small nearby moon of identical size and distance."  The fact that things don't look like you think they should under your model?  That suggests your model is wrong.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 15, 2017, 04:55:59 AM »
Non-allied countries tend to cast doubt and skepticism on each other's space capabilities.

Why bother pretending to even have a space program?  It would be cheaper to expose the "fraud" of the big players. 

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: No Stars
« on: July 13, 2017, 05:57:20 AM »
How about also taking some quick snaps from the many long distance spacecraft they supposedly send out.

Some probes actually have done what you suggest.  A lot of probes, in fact.  Messenger did it on its way to Mercury, as did JAXA on its way to Venus.  The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter have both done this from their final destinations.  Rosetta took Earth crescent photos on multiple gravity-assist passes of Earth on its way to the comet it observed (crescent because Rosetta was approaching Earth from higher orbit, which put it on the night side of the planet).  At least two Jupiter probes (Galileo and Juno) have taken Earth photos as they flew past us for gravity assist maneuvers.  Same for outer planet missions like Cassini (Saturn) and New Horizons (Pluto and Kuiper Belt Object 2014 MU69)

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Paradox Moon
« on: July 06, 2017, 12:47:54 PM »
All the photographs I've seen on the internet so far show sun rays fanned out, whether the rays looked like they were headed toward or away from the observer, or straight down.
Show me a photograph of parallel rays over a long distance.

Here you go, sunbeams and cloud shadows viewed from overhead:


11
Flat Earth General / Re: Paradox Moon
« on: July 06, 2017, 02:57:08 AM »
The easiest explanation is it's just an optical illusion, but if so, does this optical illusion have a name?
How does it work, and can it be observed in candlelight, torchlight or light bulb light?

Yes, this optical illusion has a name: Crepuscular Rays.  There is a related but opposite phenomenon of Anti-Crepuscular Rays as well.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: What is the best FE evidence?
« on: July 03, 2017, 06:20:08 AM »

Those who hold to a heliocentric view ask us to disregard what we are seeing plainly with our own eyes.
I see it for what it is, a localised sun.

Well then, from your photo it looks like the sun is only a few miles up, certainly less than the thousands of miles in the typical FE model.  Do you believe the sun is only a few miles up?  Or do you acknowledge that optical illusions are a thing?

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Spirituality and flat earth theory
« on: July 01, 2017, 05:52:08 PM »
what about the story of  Atlantis, lemuria, or even the twelve books written by Zechariah sitchin, not to mention sacred geometry, numerology, horoscopes, just to name some... I believe in order for the FE theory to gain more traction it has to answer these questions.

RE doesn't answer any of these questions, but nevertheless has plenty of traction...

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Bishop Experiment
« on: July 01, 2017, 05:48:42 PM »
The same geometry that has you looking at a point above the earth's surface on a round earth also means that if you were attempting to look at a distant spot on the ground, you would have to be able to see throught the curved volume of water between your observing location and the target location.  That's what the "wall of water" refers to.  The "wall of water" isn't actually 350 tall, and it isn't actually a "wall".  It is a sea-level surface behind which is obscured a column of growing height as the distance increases.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun Eclipse "Caused & Effects"!
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:21:33 PM »
In fact, the area of the round earth from which you can see a solar eclipse is pretty small - it's a narrow, curved path - as indicated by the narrow dark blue ribbon in this diagram for the upcoming solar eclipse on August 21st:

The TOTAL eclipse zone is quite small, yes.  The PARTIAL eclipse zone, however, is almost the entire daytime side of the world.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Bishop Experiment
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:17:25 PM »
You are right.  The right angle is between the vertical line joining the earth's center and the observer, and the horizontal line tangent to the surface of the earth at the observer's eye level.  The hypotenuse is the vertical line joining the earth's center and some point on the earth's surface at a distance from the observer.  The calculated difference between them is the amount of obscured height at the distant location.


17
Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the earth pictures?
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:55:47 AM »
False, that picture was debunked as CGI. There hasn't been 1 picture of the earth that isn't computer generated.
That photo predates CGI by decades.  It was published at the time, in the era during which it was taken.

Here's one taken in 1966, well before the CGI era:


Here's one taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968, during the Apollo 8 mission.  Again, well before CGI was a thing:


Here's a detail of that one that the US Postal Service issued on a 1969 postage stamp.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun Eclipse "Caused & Effects"!
« on: June 28, 2017, 05:35:33 AM »
I'll try again.  If you look at the picture, consider the experience of an observer located in Africa.  The eclipse is happening in the United States during Africa's nighttime hours.  The moon is in the same part of the sky as the sun (the very definition of an eclipse).  If the observer in Africa cannot see the sun (because it is night), and if the moon is in the same part of the sky as the sun, then the observer in Africa cannot see the moon either.

This same logic holds true if the earth is flat, by the way.  On the flat earth, we are told that you cannot see the sun at night because it is too far away.  (I'm simplifying here, there is more to it than that, but it boils down to "too far away" in the end.)  So if the sun is too far away for you to see it, and the moon is in about the same place as the sun, then the moon is also too far away for you to see it.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity...
« on: June 28, 2017, 05:25:39 AM »
Continue debate in topic 'Gravity (2.0) '. This page is too cluttered.

...says the person responsible for 14 of the 36 posts...

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun Eclipse "Caused & Effects"!
« on: June 26, 2017, 07:19:13 AM »
And, maybe my question is to who believe that the earth is a ball spinning. Therefore; any answer could help to the subject!
Since you've specifically called for answers from those of us 'who believe that the earth is a ball spinning', I will give you the round earth answer.

at the night side of the earth do they see the moon at the sun eclipse time or, not?
No, they do not.

And why?
Because as you must know, when it is night somewhere, that means the sun is on the other side of the planet.  During an eclipse the moon is on the same side of the world as the sun is, and therefore the moon is also on the opposite side of the planet, and therefore also not visible.  See the picture below.  At the time of the eclipse (daytime in the US) it is night in Africa and Europe.  See where the moon is?  Just like the sun, it is on the other side of the world.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >