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 - Nefarious

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: October 24, 2019, 04:05:25 PM »
You presented your explanation as established fact . Read the article I linked properly - that explanation uses the word "might " in it's explanation that light traveling from different edges of a planet may due to a "zigzag" effect  cancel refraction . That is theory because science cannot find a satisfactory explanation.
I think you read the article wrong. Here.
Quote
You might think of it as the light traveling a zig-zag path to our eyes, instead of the straight path the light would travel if Earth didn’t have an atmosphere.
She's not expressing doubt, this is a well understood phenomenon. She's simplifying it so it might be easier to understand to those unfamiliar with the concepts. She uses 'Might' three times in the article. That was the first time. Here's the second:
Quote
You might see planets twinkling if you spot them low in the sky. That’s because, in the direction of any horizon, you’re looking through more atmosphere than when you look overhead.
Interestingly points out a flaw in the claim that planets don't twinkle. The third:
Quote
Experienced observers often can, but, at first, if you can recognize a planet in some other way, you might notice the steadiness of its light by contrasting it to a nearby star.
Neat article. Thanks for posting it.  :)

Addendum: missed one, and it looks like this is the one you were talking about.
Quote
But – while the light from one edge of a planet’s disk might be forced to “zig” one way – light from the opposite edge of the disk might be “zagging” in an opposite way. The zigs and zags of light from a planetary disk cancel each other out, and that’s why planets appear to shine steadily.
Although the use of the word 'might' still isn't used to cast doubt on the concept itself. The article even points out that planets can still twinkle if viewed closer to the horizon, meaning that sometimes the refraction is severe enough that they won't cancel each other out.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The FE Map
« on: September 30, 2019, 02:20:52 PM »
Of course, that MIGHT be because it's a projection of a globe map called the Azimuthal Equidistant projection, (also called the Gleeson Projection, I think), but eh, what do we know?
Apparently not that much, given that the monopolar map predates the "AE projection" (albeit Gleason's New Standard Map does not).
I was talking about this map, Pete.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Which IS an AE map, and one which this site features in it's wiki under 'monopole model'. Actually, it's the very first map on that page in your wiki. OP wanted to know why the continents seemed out of proportion on a particular FE map, and this projection is often used.  On the RE model, it's because this is a projection map, a globe 'flattened out' like a sheet of paper, so you're going to have some distortion.
And yeah, AE maps are pretty old, apparently as far back as the 11th century.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/medieval/albiruni/albiruni.html

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The FE Map
« on: September 30, 2019, 03:02:44 AM »
Depends on the map you're talking about, since there's more than one map that the flat earth community uses.
However, a popular one is the 'Ice wall map', with the antarctic represented as a sort of Ice Wall around the edge of the disc, with the north pole at the center. That map has some...interesting proportions that don't really comport too well with established measurements.
Of course, that MIGHT be because it's a projection of a globe map called the Azimuthal Equidistant projection, (also called the Gleeson Projection, I think), but eh, what do we know?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 26, 2019, 09:39:36 PM »
First, I'd like to correct myself: La Verrier and Adams' calculations WERE wrong. Turns out they had used something called Bode's Law to predict the position of the planet Neptune.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law
Problem was, Neptune didn't follow this law, as it turns out that it's much closer to the sun than the law predicted. This was apparently the first planet to do so, which is a big part of why Bode's Law has been superseded today.
So, both La Verrier and Adams started off on the wrong foot, and their calculations, which were based on this hypothetical position of Neptune, were thrown off as a result. The planet WAS basically found by pure luck.
But does that invalidate the prediction made using the theory of universal gravitation? I don't think it does. Yes, they got the position wrong. Yes, it could very well have been pure luck that the planet happened to be in the neighborhood. But it was still based on the hypothesis that, if Newton was correct, there should be a large mass out there perturbing Uranus' orbit. And, wouldn't you know it, there it was.
It's interesting that you bring up Walker. I read that article from start to finish, and he mentioned a fellow named Lalande quite a bit, and it turns out Lalande had actually spotted neptune in 1795, and didn't realize it. He used this, along with other possible prediscovery sightings , and observational data gathered in the 9 or so months of observation of the planet Neptune to help create a more accurate model of Neptune and it's orbit.
Claims of dishonesty with Adams. You can say that it appears to be dishonesty, but Adams was described as 'Diffident', or lacking in self confidence. And his predictions of Neptunes position certainly seem to support that, as he was jumping all over the place. So, you say 'Dishonest', I say, 'a man who couldn't make his calculations fit with reality and kept changing it until he could'.
Also, he openly stated that he though La Verriere deserved the credit and that he wasn't sore about. Doesn't sound like someone dishonest to me.
Interestingly, it was La Verriere that first noticed that the orbit of Mercury didn't quite line up with Newtonian mechanics. That's how we got to the whole 'planet Vulkan' bit, until general relativity managed to explain Mercury's orbit. Can't wait for Tom to jump on THAT tidbit.
Science advances due to it's failures as much as it's successes. Neptune showed us Bode's law was more like a suggestion, and Mercury showed us we had an incomplete picture of gravity.
Flat Earth can't even agree on a goddamn map.
Which one do you expect I should take seriously?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 24, 2019, 02:00:46 AM »
Luck in their timing, sure. But the calculations based on the pertubations in Uranus' orbit were sound, and were based on Newton's theory of gravitation. It was clear that, assuming Newton was right, there was SOMETHING there affecting Uranus' orbit. What Adams and La Verriere got wrong was essentially the size of the orbit, not the existence of the planet itself.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

 

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 23, 2019, 09:44:26 PM »
https://earthsky.org/human-world/today-in-science-discovery-of-neptune

I feel this is especially appropriate, given that today is the anniversary of it's discovery. Mathematics and Newton's theory used to produce a testable hypothesis about the location of a then-unknown planet beyond Uranus. A prediction that turned out to be accurate.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Intrigued College Student
« on: September 20, 2019, 01:37:21 PM »
Out of curiousity, what subjects did this scientist major in?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 07, 2019, 02:07:13 AM »
Of course, we run into the problem of 'why should we accept anything that the bible says is true?'

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
« on: August 27, 2019, 02:21:42 AM »
Slow motion photography which is what KubricK used on fake landing, was invented in very early 1900's by Priest August Musger

What does this have to do with OP's question?

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
« on: August 17, 2019, 01:25:30 PM »
'Up' and 'Down' are not absolute terms, they're relative. 'Down' in this case is 'towards the center of gravity' while 'up' is 'away from the center of gravity'. People stationed at McMurdo in Antarctica experience the same 'down' that you do, the force pulling them towards the earth.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:16:06 PM »
It feels like this conversation got onto a tangent, because I'm not sure what Nibiru has to do with FE at all.
There is a claim that there is an object circling the sun in some version of the FE model that is causing lunar eclipses. What evidence, not including the claim itself, is there to support the existence of this object?

Pages: [1]