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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 155  Next >
41
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: April 04, 2023, 11:25:51 PM »
I agree. Looks like an exposure issue more than anything else. From the video posted, around 1:25, changing exposure reveals the clouds in front of the Moon:


42
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: April 04, 2023, 02:10:53 AM »

43
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: April 03, 2023, 11:14:31 PM »
Delegating perspective shrinking to an illusion is even worse for you, as you are now stamping your feet about one optical illusion over another optical illusion.

Not at all, no stomping required. Just seemed that you were singling out that illusion is somehow "special" and unique to astronomy when it's no more special than terrestrial perspective illusion.


44
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: April 03, 2023, 09:36:24 PM »
That the stars, planets, and galaxies are said to be illusions in modern Astronomy, is also evidence that special rules apply to the celestial bodies beyond traditional perspective theory.

Apparently special rules apply on earth as well when it comes to the traditional laws of perspective. The car traveling away from me doesn't really shrink in physical size as it gets further away, it's just an illusion that it appears to shrink.

45
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: April 02, 2023, 06:05:23 PM »
There are no straight slopes on a globe. They are all curved. If i walked 1.57 miles due south from someone at the north pole i would be 1 mile lower than them on the globe. But because that doesnt appear to occur then the earth can not be global.

I think you're wrong according to the RE model...

Drop: is the amount the surface at the target has dropped from the tangent plane at the surface of the observer. This amount depends on the surface distance between observer and target. This distance is dependent on the Target Distance and the Side Pos of the target via Pythagoras.

The Drop after walking 1.57 miles on the globe is 1.644'.



It's unclear why you keep asserting it's not.

46
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 01, 2023, 12:23:36 AM »
I had to search for the clip because I can't believe Blago, a Dem, served 8 years on federal charges of public corruption, actually said that. He did.

Equating DJT being indicted/arrested to the opening salvo of the Civil War? He must have been super high on something quite potent. Even if you don't agree with the actions, Civil War? Really? We should lock him up for another 8 years just for being an idiot. Maybe throw Tuck in the joint too just for having him on. No wonder the country is so fucked up with pundits like this in lofted positions influencing public opinion, all just for ratings and stock prices.

Of course he doesn't really believe that. He's a grifter talking to another grifter, trying to rile up the rubes who support yet another grifter. They know that Trump is guilty. In fact, I'm sure that most of Trump's fans know he's guilty as well. They just don't care. Undoubtedly many of them envy and admire Trump for his affair with a porn star, while simultaneously believing that the affair never happened, because Trump is a pious and respectable family man who never cheat on his wife - and also because Trump is such an awesome stud who scores all the time that Daniels was far below his very high standards for women. As I've said before, Trumpism is inherently contradictory.

I'm just surprised that Blago raced to DJT's defense when he was fired by him on The Apprentice...But as Crout mentioned, Trump did pardon him. That certainly would make up for being axed on national television. Grifters will grift.


47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 01, 2023, 12:20:29 AM »
Your source is a porn star. One step up from the illegal profession of prostitution. Hardly the best source. Stormy Daniels even went on Jimmy Kimmel and lied that it wasn't her signature on the denial letter when it was.

Actually, I think the star witness here is going to be Michael Cohen, not Stormy. I don't know that Stormy's testimony really matters. I'm guessing they have "receipts" for all of these transactions through that National Enquirer guy and maybe Trump Corp's CFO and such. It's basically how they got to Cohen in the first place. Stormy saying she slept with DJT or not is almost inconsequential, especially considering there are something like 30 charges they have to wade through.

Now when it comes to Cohen, probably equally problematic in terms of truthiness.

All in all, a grand jury decided whether there was enough there to indict. Apparently they felt there was and the rule of law prevails.

48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 31, 2023, 05:16:33 PM »
I had to search for the clip because I can't believe Blago, a Dem, served 8 years on federal charges of public corruption, actually said that. He did.

Equating DJT being indicted/arrested to the opening salvo of the Civil War? He must have been super high on something quite potent. Even if you don't agree with the actions, Civil War? Really? We should lock him up for another 8 years just for being an idiot. Maybe throw Tuck in the joint too just for having him on. No wonder the country is so fucked up with pundits like this in lofted positions influencing public opinion, all just for ratings and stock prices.

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 30, 2023, 05:14:12 AM »
You will be surprised to learn that neither the stars or planets shrink according to the laws of perspective.

See this history and lesson on Astronomy by Prof. Graney. The size of the stars were deemed to be illusions -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

Quote

The laws of perspective are an illusion as well.

Did you happen to read the rest of the article this graphic is from? Specifically in reference to the last sentence:
Copernicans could not explain away the anomalous data without appeals to divine intervention. In reality, the stars are far away, but their apparent width is an illusion, an artifact of the way light behaves as it enters a pupil or telescope-behavior that scientists would not understand for another 200 years.

It has a little something to do with 93 million miles away and 864,000 miles in diameter versus 3000 miles away and 30 miles in diameter.

And I still don't understand this: "The projection is made on a section of atmosphere between your eyes and the Sun. It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle"
What does It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle mean?

50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 28, 2023, 11:17:15 PM »
See bolded:

So what is the light source? The sun? Yes
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane? The Sun does. The Sun "projects" light like the fire in the cave example.

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected The Sun projects it light upon the atmolayer) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located? The source is the physical body of the Moon, which also projects (reflected) light rays from it like the Sun
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble? Unrelated
- And how does the projection create the solar flares? Unrelated
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row? The projection is made on a section of atmosphere between your eyes and the Sun. It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle.

Quote from: stack
The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

    Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

    A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Yes. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. Polarized Filters are different than Solar Filters. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect. This is referring to Polarized Filters, not Solar Filters. Polarized lenses are discussed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't. A Solar Filter cannot remove a projection or reflection of light, only dim it. If the projection is magnified it's not going to reveal the true size of the source light, just like a pair of sunglasses can't remove a projection of a movie projection. If the movie screen were a semi-transparent sheet, standing on the other side if the sheet with a pair of sunglasses would not reveal the true size of the light source. The projection could be of various sizes upon the semi-transparent screen, and the sunglasses will not reveal the true size of the light source.

I guess I still don't get it. When I'm looking at the moon is it not the moon, but a projection of the moon?

As for filters and such, the point being, whether magnified or not, the sun doesn't change size as it arcs from sunrise to sunset and it should if it's moving away from the observer. As well, the atmolayer isn't a 2D movie screen. It's a thick 3D soup filling the space above the earth.


51
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 27, 2023, 11:26:12 PM »
Quote from: stack
I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

A projection does not need a directional "projector". Consider a shadow puppet show in a cave by the light of a fire. The fire in the middle of the cave allows its occupants to project shadow puppets on the cave walls around them. The fire projects light, and is the "projector".

So what is the light source? The sun?
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane?

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located?
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble?
- And how does the projection create the solar flares?
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row?

Quote from: stack
The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

    Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

    A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect.

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't.

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 27, 2023, 07:01:54 PM »
So where is this projector and how does it operate? That, as well, remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in FET.

It's a projection of a body upon a medium. It's explained in the Wiki - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

Also, there's a bunch in the wiki about polarizing filters and glare an such. Some people use Solar filters which are different than polarizing filters.

A polarizer might block one or two stops of visible light. Amount of IR or UV blocked is unknown.
Eye-safe solar filters block over 16 stops of IR, visible, and UV.


Here are a couple of examples of a sunset through a solar filter:



The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 25, 2023, 07:26:31 PM »
That doesn't explain why the Sun has layers with radically different temperatures, or why the photosphere is so much cooler than the sun's atmosphere.

Well, you were just remarking on the darkness not on what causes the layers to be which causes darkness.

And your explanation seems to be a projection just like mine seems to be layers. And I didn't describe what causes the layers to work the way they do just like you haven't described what causes the projection.

So where is this projector and how does it operate? That, as well, remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in FET.

You can find various articles which get published every so often which claim to have solved it like any other major problem, but those are not the consensus that it is a mystery in Astronomy. There are "we solved it!" papers published practically every year or two, but the next year something will be published suggesting that it's a mystery. The official stance is generally that it's a mystery.

Even NASA's standard educational materials admit that it's a historic mystery that still persists:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12903

Quote
Discovering the Sun’s Mysteriously Hot Atmosphere

Something mysterious is going on at the Sun. In defiance of all logic, its atmosphere gets much, much hotter the farther it stretches from the Sun’s blazing surface.

Temperatures in the corona — the Sun’s outer atmosphere — spike to 3 million degrees Fahrenheit, while just 1,000 miles below, the underlying surface simmers at a balmy 10,000 F. How the Sun manages this feat is a mystery that dates back nearly 150 years, and remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics. Scientists call it the coronal heating problem.

See: "remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics" and look up the definition of "remains".

In FET, how does the projected corona get so hot?

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 25, 2023, 04:39:42 PM »
The image is somewhat inaccurate. The Sun is not brighter near the edges. The Sun is actually darker near the edges: A long standing mystery in Astronomy.

I don't know if this is correct, but limb darkening doesn't seem to be a "mystery" to astronomy...

The photosphere is the visible surface of the Sun that we are most familiar with. Since the Sun is a ball of gas, this is not a solid surface but is actually a layer about 100 km thick (very, very, thin compared to the 700,000 km radius of the Sun). When we look at the center of the disk of the Sun we look straight in and see somewhat hotter and brighter regions. When we look at the limb, or edge, of the solar disk we see light that has taken a slanting path through this layer and we only see through the upper, cooler and dimmer regions. This explains the "limb darkening" that appears as a darkening of the solar disk near the limb.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/surface.shtml

Even lowly olde Britannica gives it a mention:

Such limb darkening occurs because the solar atmosphere increases in temperature with depth. At the centre of the solar disk, an observer sees the deepest and warmest layers that emit the most light. At the limb, only the upper, cooler layers that produce less light can be seen. Observations of solar limb darkening are used to determine the temperature structure of the Sun’s atmosphere.
https://www.britannica.com/science/limb-darkening



You mentioned projection of the celestial bodies on the atmolayer? Where is the projector? And how is it operated?

55
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 24, 2023, 11:30:13 AM »
...he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.
All democrats are shills, of course.
It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.
Democrats do not get indicted for paying off women to keep silent.

A' la Trump's good buddy, Clinton...

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

It's not that he paid hush money. He could have just written her a personal check or handed her a bag full of money from under his mattress and that would have been that. It's far more complicated in regard to where the money came from and how it was recorded/claimed, so to speak. Basically all the stuff Cohen got a three year sentence for; campaign finance illegalities, tax stuff, etc. Here's the short version...

Bragg’s case reportedly alleges that the Trump Organization falsely logged the payment to Daniels as legal expenses so it wouldn’t have to be disclosed as money benefiting Trump’s presidential campaign. One specific charge would likely be falsification of business records, a misdemeanor offense in New York. But, per the Times, Bragg’s team has considered arguing that these business records were falsified to cover up another crime — which could mean Trump would be charged with a felony.

I have no idea what this "cover up another crime" is. I think that's what the grand jury stuff was about.

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 24, 2023, 03:38:37 AM »

57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 23, 2023, 07:30:59 PM »
In the "Took me 30 seconds" in getting us the video did AllAroundTheWorld even bother watching the Jan 2018 Jimmy Kimmel interview?



One has to ask the question as to why then the payoff?

In any case, no affair, story changes, affair...Doesn't matter:

Unfortunately for Trump, he's being charged over the payoff to Daniels, not the alleged affair with her.

58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 23, 2023, 06:26:46 PM »
I removed two of my replies to the offending parties here, who happen to believe everything they see on social media and in the news.

I guess if you can't believe Trump on his own social media platform who can you believe...


59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 22, 2023, 09:09:08 AM »
Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki

It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

If you go to that redirect and read the content it says that the horizon is not always at eye level. So why are you claiming that the wiki says that the horizon is always at eye level or that it is the official stance?

Because, quite simply, I was mistaken. Let me explain.

I was reading through ENAG to see what good old Sam had to say about the horizon, atmosphere, eye level, etc. And I came across this from Chapter 'PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA’ :
“…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…”

He refers back to FIG. 44 under EXPERIMENT 15:


And I swore that the wiki aligned with that belief being ENAG, Rowbotham and all. But I couldn’t find anything in the wiki specifically about it. So I searched the forum and found a suggestion thread from 2018 requesting that the following statement in the wiki under the page https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level be altered:

"A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.”


That particular suggestion thread somewhat died seemingly without a resolution.

However, apparently that statement was deleted in 2019 and the page redirected to https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Horizon_Dip.

It now appears that TFES no longer holds the Rowbotham position that the horizon always rises to eye level as it did back in 2018. At least FE and GE are now in agreement on one thing.

60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: March 20, 2023, 11:51:22 AM »
Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE.
They do have "much to do" with FE. The book is an important historical record, and provides useful context on how we developed over time. It used not to be available elsewhere, and has since once again become a well-known piece of our history. It absolutely "has much to do" with FE.

Unfortunately, this is on you for mindlesuquote-mining a resource you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself over the course of five years.

I personally wouldn’t consider presenting a passage explicitly stating that the horizon always rises to eye level taken from a former wiki page titled “Horizon always at Eye Level” as mindless quote-mining. But that’s just me.
 
Like I mentioned before, as this now seems to be something that the society no longer adheres to then that’s fine. I incorrectly had assumed otherwise.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 155  Next >