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 - stack

Pages: < Back  1 ... 151 152 [153] 154 155  Next >
3041
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 01, 2018, 08:22:52 AM »
According to Bilsin’s Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator, 6’ camera level at the Salton Sea shore from 17 miles, with the tower at 199.1 feet tall, with its base 141.9 feet above the Salton Sea level (Land + Tower = 335’ total), 130.7 feet are hidden. Subtracting the hidden height from 335’ you get 204.3’. Meaning you should see the entirety of the tower +5’ from the 17 mile distance. Which seems to check out perfectly from an RE perspective.



Now, the X factor is whether the camera was at the shore line, 6’ feet above. It looks like it’s at the shoreline from the original image, but I can’t say with all certainty. If it was, based upon the angle, I put the camera right about here:


3042
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 01, 2018, 07:42:57 AM »
According to this link below there are 14 or 15 towers around that sea. How would we know which one it is? Bobby said that he was unable to match the mountain in the background with the tower he found, and the one he found was of a different height to the tower JTolan is looking at.


3043
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 01, 2018, 12:26:59 AM »


I'd like to know ground elevations. The tower is listed as 200' AGL but I can't remember the elevation it's standing on. I'm on my phone so can't look it up easily. But it would be important to get the relative elevation and heights right and verify the distance. The fact that the tower is listed as 200' and not 130' is reason enough to question. It may be 130' after subtracting a below sea level elevation. But where was the camera positioned 6' over?

The Salton Sea is 236 below sea level.

Using J Tolans screen shot, the tower, as Bobby stated, is owned by T Mobile. It is located here: 33.279167 / -115.962417

http://www.cellreception.com/towers/details.php?id=1240572

According to the above, the tower info:

Height:

Overall Height Above Ground: 60.7 meters or 199.1 feet
Overall Height Above Ground Without Appurtenances: 60.7 meters or 199.1 feet
Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level: -28.7 meters or -94.1 feet
Overall Height Above Mean Sea Level: 32.0 meters or 104.987 feet

Base of the tower is 141.9’ above the Salton Sea + the height of the tower (199.1) means that the top of the tower is 199.1 + 141.9 = 341’ above the Sea - 6’ equals a total tower height of 335’.  Now this is assuming the shot is from 6’ above the sea, which seems to be the case from J Tolen’s image.

3044
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 31, 2018, 07:42:03 PM »
We have no idea what the weather conditions was like on that day at those times. There is no way to quantify this based on Rowbotham's identification of weather as the correlating criteria without knowing more about the scene.

We do:


3045
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 31, 2018, 09:41:15 AM »
ENAG forms the basis of the Flat Earth movement. If you want to attack Flat Earth, you need to assess Earth Not a Globe to see what the actual assertions are.

Running around shouting "I expect to see zero amount hidden at ALL times" is disingenuous . This is not what Rowbotham describes or expected to see at all. You should read and understand what the theory is based on if you are to attack it.
No one has been "Running around shouting "I expect to see zero amount hidden at ALL times". Like I wrote, you've been asked many times for input as to what the FE hidden value should be as a part of the baseline data set. Where was your concern for the baseline 3 pages ago?

The goalposts were never moved. Our study of the sinking ship effect is written in black and white, published over 150 years ago. Rowbotham described it as highly variable, and obviously due to local and special causes since the effect goes away over time. Rowbotham relates the effect to the weather moreso than any concrete pattern, and suggests that the water convexity experiment is done on a calm day and preferably  on a standing body of water.
Great, one book, by one guy of dubious reputation. 

If you are looking at one sunken scene and jumping up and down screaming "I win," you are doing it wrong. You need to read the literature to see what you actually need to debunk.
And no one is screaming "I win". Simply do the math and show the numbers that explain FE deltas for this challenge.

3046
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 31, 2018, 08:52:29 AM »
We have many scenes which contradicts the Round Earth curvature entirely.

Your argument is quite weak. Desperate, in my opinion. We have documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect over 150 years ago. It is one of the basis for this very movement.

RE has documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect for over 2000 years. So what's your point? If you want to toss about 'legacy', I would have to say, your argument is quite weak.

And I care not for the basis of your movement. That is for you and your movement. If your argument is that of simply 150 years ago and it's core to your belief system, that certainly doesn't hold up under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Numbers? Where are your numbers? Argue the point at hand. This, as the OP stated, is a Flat v Sphere challenge. You've been given the data and have been a part of the process of developing the data for the challenge. Yet you choose to circumvent and discard the data when the numbers roll in as unfavorable to FET. Why? Simply apply your calculations based upon your reasoning to pull your raw numbers in to what they should be. That was and is the challenge. Man up and do the work.

You and others are expressing the sentiment of "I expect to see zero hidden at all times!"

You've been asked many times for input as to what the FE hidden value should be as a part of the baseline data set. You seemingly have had no qualms about the values presented until FE raw calculations came back as craptastic. Curious as to why you are moving the goalposts now.


3047
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 31, 2018, 06:44:35 AM »
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse.
Quite frankly, it is, just that, an excuse.
________

Numbers.

This entire exercise was centered around numbers. Bobby went to painstaking, excruciating lengths in fact, to be measured and fair about how every single bit of data was to be presented for review, rebuttal and revision…with numbers. And with the intent that the numbers would be raw, unencumbered with “magic wands”. A baseline of RE/FE.

As we progressed along, numbers were introduced, remeasuring occurred, data amassed, still raw as intended, bereft of both RE’s and FE’s refraction ‘excuses’ et al. All with input from both RE and FE.

The end RAW result was:



When the raw data came out far more unfavorable for FE, all of a sudden, numbers are dispensed with and new ‘evidence’ is introduced, unrelated directly to the examination at hand. Evidence such as:

There are timelapse videos of the sinking ship effect, which shows directly that the sinking ship effect phenomenon changes over time. There are also tell-tale signs that there is refraction on the water when the sinking ship effect does occur.

In all circumstances, it shows this ‘directly'? Really? So now the FE position on the sinking ship effect is an atmospheric phenomena that changes over time and is always present and not ‘perspective’? How convenient.

From Earth Not a Globe:
"Hence the phenomenon of the hull of an outward bound vessel being the first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied upon as proving the rotundity of the earth, is fairly, both logically and mathematically, a proof of the very contrary, that the earth is a plane.
It has been misunderstood and misapplied in consequence of an erroneous view of the laws of perspective, and the unconquered desire to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose is now completely demonstrated.”

That aside, fine, pick your magic wand poison, but show the numbers as to how you pull in your 83, 80, 85, 87, 89, 89, & 100 percent error rate. RE’s have been provided, let’s see FE’s.

3048
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Formation of Mountains and Volcanoes
« on: August 30, 2018, 05:48:29 AM »
If mountains were created by plates they would continue to grow and they don’t. Mountains are created when the pockets collapse

Actually most are formed by tectonic plate movement. It's called Orogeny or orogenesis, the building of continental mountains by plate-tectonic movements. And many are, in fact, still growing.

3049
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 30, 2018, 12:39:42 AM »
3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images:



The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels cubes are lined up, then the towers should be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that it squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.

Taking for example A & D, the number black lines black lines indicating where the 2m gap is between each section seem to line up quiet cleanly with perhaps only a pixel or two of squashing.

Additionally, again, taking for example A & D, 58 PX wide versus 68 PX wide respectively. According to your measurements of the Turning Torso rendering, 50 PX = 66.2766 FT. Or 1.325 PX per FT.
With a 10 PX width difference between A & D, that’s approximately a 13.25’ difference.
Measuring the difference between A & D’s waterlines, it’s a 125 PX difference or 165.625’
Subtracting the 13.25’ difference in width from the 165.625’ waterline heights…

Where did the remaining 152 Feet of water come from?

3050
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: August 28, 2018, 05:32:45 AM »
In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.

I think you’re going to have a really hard time making an explanation of UA simple and digestible. Not that it can’t be made so, just that gravity, whether someone moderately understands the mechanics or not, is so fundamentally ingrained, it will be very difficult to snap. Take your experiments for example, 99.9% of people will immediately re-write/counter them in their heads from a gravity perspective:

Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that you accelerate downwards toward the earth. In other words, it’s called “falling down”.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this you should also feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. No I don’t, why would the act of dropping a ball suddenly make me feel like the earth is pressing up or even that I’m pressing down on my feet? This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball. No it doesn’t, it’s called “dropping” something.

Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. The phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.

Same premise as above. It’s way too easy for the lay person to simply counter with, “This UA you speak of is the thing that is entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. As I'm sure because gravity is, well, you know, gravity, there's nothing new to construct with it and there's lots of physics involved that I'm sure have been tested, I read about that Newton guy in grade school..."

I’m not writing this from a debate perspective, just from one where I think UA is as large of a theory as FET itself and requires a lot of explanation that simple observations don’t cover well enough to be able to dispense with gravity in the minds of the vast vast majority. It’s large enough to almost warrant it’s own movement, “The Universal Acceleration Society”.


3051
So ... do we become the censors, or does Lord Steven Christ get an equal billing when he says the earth is flat?

You become curators, not censors.
If we are picking and choosing, it is the same thing.

I guess it's all in how you position (spin) it. Is the Louvre censoring it's collection?

But a valid point, TFES would become somewhat more of an endorser of outside content. It gets tricky pretty quickly.

3052
So ... do we become the censors, or does Lord Steven Christ get an equal billing when he says the earth is flat?

You become curators, not censors.

3053
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 27, 2018, 12:28:12 AM »
I went ahead an plugged in the refraction levels needed to get the RE deltas super close to 0.


3054
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses
« on: August 26, 2018, 10:03:03 PM »
If my senses can't be trusted, how am I using an instrument that can only be perceived using those same untrustworthy senses?

You use an instrument to enhance your senses to make them trustworthy again.

3055
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses
« on: August 26, 2018, 08:42:14 PM »
Why would I allow you to hand me two fuel rods, one of which could be lethally radioactive? In fact, I don't think I would trust you to hand me anything at all in any order.

The issue is not whether you trust me, nor whether you wish to court danger. The issue is whether or not you would rely on your senses to tell you where the radioactivity is, or whether you would rely on an instrument to guide you; an instrument which would trigger a sense which would not be able to detect the radioactivity directly.

How am I suppose to use an instrument that I can only perceive with my senses if I don't trust my senses?

I think the point is that our senses alone are inadequate in certain situations.

Sometimes we need to enhance our senses with additional methods/instruments. A flashlight helps us see in a scenario where it is too dark to see without it. Would you trust your sense of sight alone to guide you out of a darkened cave? No, eyesight as a sense is null and void at that point. Maybe you could rely on touch and smell, but hopefully not taste. What if the situation makes all of your senses inadequate as given in the other examples. Then you would rely on a method/instrument to enhance your previously rendered inadequate senses to become adequate.

So no, you cannot only trust your senses if they are rendered inadequate by the situation at hand and yes, you can trust your senses if they are adequate or enhanced to become so.

3056
I imagine the response to this may be "That's ridiculous! Why is the earth flat, but the other planets around it are not? How is it so different that comparison is insufficient? It makes more sense that the Earth is round like the round planets around it."
And the response to that is "well the earth is special. It is large, it has its own sun to warm it and it is the only place we find life. It isn't like the tiny twinkling planets you see when you look up. "

If the sun is no more than 32 miles across ... how big is a star placed not much different in altitude? The size of a double decker bus? Maybe we need to make much more out of how very different earth is from planets. People have been taught earth and planets are the same, stars are different. We need to be saying stars and planets are the same, earth is different ... which is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyeballs.

It depends on what you want an FAQ to be. Usually they are used to blunt an onslaught of common questions from being asked over and over again in a short, terse manner. You can always link off to a more in depth examination. But an FAQ should weed out a bunch.

I think what people get from school and media is that we learn there are 3 things out there: Planets, of which earth is one, moons that are 'attached' to planets, and stars, of which the sun is one. That's kinda the core belief system. Then with FET you kind of get four, the 4th being earth. I don't think it's a leap from there to make a case that earth is fundamentally different from the other 3, hence the insufficient comparison. Easy explanation, to your point Thork, it's the only place we find life. Doesn't get more fundamentally different than that.

So my point is that if the fundamental difference(s) are not already known to the reader, there's not much more you can say to convince them otherwise.

3057
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 26, 2018, 02:19:13 AM »
Is the baseline sound? Should it be adjusted and why? I think there's plenty of a jumping off point to warrant exploration. Starting off with:

How does FE pull in their deltas?
How does RE pull in their deltas?

3058
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Model
« on: August 26, 2018, 12:01:42 AM »
Most annoyingly, he has allowed you to change the height of the dome, but not the altitudes of the sun and moon independantly. He's got them up really high. Rowbotham had the sun at just 800 miles. I can't get them down that low. And they shouldn't touch the firmament. They aren't stuck to it.

He kind of addresses this in the comments:

"Sun inside or outside the Dome (Wabis to Dave)

It is not relevant for this model whether the sun is inside or outside of the dome. The dome shown in this model is simply a visual grid to show the locations of the sun and moon. You can imagine the real dome to be farther out if you wish. That does not change anything."

3059
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?
« on: August 25, 2018, 05:38:35 AM »
Do you believe the UN would choose an inaccurate map as their primary logo?

No, I don't believe they would choose an inaccurate map as their logo. They chose the correct one, an Azimuthal Globe Projection Map.

3060
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?
« on: August 24, 2018, 09:46:38 PM »
Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.

Revised:


Pages: < Back  1 ... 151 152 [153] 154 155  Next >