3301

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 12, 2018, 10:40:49 AM »

I've been lied to. Everyone said it was coming home. Its probably going to France instead. 

Maybe it moved to France?

3302

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 12, 2018, 09:27:55 AM »

Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.

Really? He believed the moon is self-illuminating, that it produces "cold light" and that it's translucent?!
And this is someone whose writings you take seriously and base your beliefs on? Wow...

On the first of those, this is a photo I took of the moon with a relatively cheap camera



Even on that you can see the moon's features (which you can see with the naked eye) and you can see some of the bigger craters and the way shadows are cast by them.
It's clear that it is being lit by a light source.

3303

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 12, 2018, 06:18:23 AM »

ugh who gives a shit about france/croatia.  lame.

While we’re here, who gives a shit about England/Belgium.
What exactly is the point of the 3rd place playoff? I don’t think I watched in 1990, I certainly don’t know who won. Who cares?
We came 3rd in the World Cup! Yay!

Meh.

3304

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 11, 2018, 09:58:54 PM »

Bollocks, frankly.
We were second best tonight but we had our chances. If only we’d got a second we might have held on.
Would have got shat on in the final, but still. Probably our best chance of getting there in my lifetime (and I do include 1990 which I’m old enough to remember)

3305

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 11, 2018, 11:47:24 AM »

France looked a bit scary last night.

England have a chance later but think we're screwed if we get to the final, France are much better than us.

3306

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation of the earth via both the South Pole and North Pole

« on: July 11, 2018, 11:00:04 AM »

It is quite easy to do a north to south circumnavigation on a bi-polar map tbh. just follow the vertical lines (though this doesn't work at 0 longitude).
Doing a east to west circumnavigation you would follow the lines aswell horizontal (though this doesn't work at the equator).

Yes, I see what you mean but as you say it doesn't work at the equator and the nearer the equator you go the sharper the turn you have to do to "keep going"
The basic problem is that there is no flat earth map which actually reflects the reality of how people travel every day in terms of distances between places and where they are in relation to one another.

3307

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation of the earth via both the South Pole and North Pole

« on: July 11, 2018, 09:57:10 AM »

Pretty trivial on a bipolar model so really not sure what your issue is, no different to the east/west issue even on the classical model, but as a side note what does pacmanning mean in this context because maybe there's a slang definition i don't know but i checked and i sincerely hope it's not one of them.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pac-manning

By pacmanning I mean the idea that you disappear from one part of a map and reappear in another - in Pac Man you go through the tunnel on the right of the screen and reappear on the left.
It's a common criticism by RE that you would have to do that in order to circumnavigate a flat earth. I actually accept that in a unipole FE model you wouldn't have to do that to circumnavigate the "globe" going East or West because "East" and "West" would go round in a circle as the Wiki states:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation

But how could one do a circumnavigation over both Poles? The uni-pole model only has one. And on a bi-polar model how would circumnavigation work either East-West or North-South?
I've shown both models here. On the top one the red circle shows an East-West circumnavigation. I'm not clear how that would work on the bi-polar model or how North-South would work on either model:



Maybe the problem is these maps are not accurate but could you either annotate the above with how circumnavigation would work both East-West and North-South on the bi-polar flat earth model? You say it's trivial, can you show your workings?

3308

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 10, 2018, 07:25:41 AM »

Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is that direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."

I'm pretty sure that isn't what polarized lenses do, and at best they will cut out half the light - because light can be polarized in two directions - which means yes, they will reduce glare but they do not completely eliminate it and your "examples" prove that, you can clearly see glare in those photos. Try looking at the sun with polarized sunglasses on, see how that goes (actually, don't, you'll probably damage your eyesight). A proper solar filter eliminates almost ALL the light, it has to because the sun is so bright.
https://www.celestron.com/blogs/knowledgebase/how-does-a-solar-filter-work

It is a problem in RE, and it is well admitted. Astronomers can't really explain how it works to have outer layers of the sun 30% dimmer than the body.

Far as I understood your sun is the same as the RE one, just smaller and closer and powered by...something. So why is this not a problem for FE too?
I'm not saying that everything about the sun is understood. Or, if it is, it's not understood by me. But I don't see what point you're making. I mean, you don't understand anything about your made up sun. You don't know how it's powered, why it goes in the orbit it does, what force keeps changing its orbit - if it's going in a circle there must be a force to make it do so, and forces to keep changing height and orbit diameter to cause seasons and moon phases. Your answer to all of this is "unknown". Yet you're claiming that some gaps in knowledge in real science are in some way telling? We understand a lot more than we used to about all kinds of things but it would be arrogant to think we've understood everything. That doesn't mean that everything we've discovered is wrong.

3309

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 10, 2018, 06:40:52 AM »

What so you mean not filtered enough? The manufacturer says that those glasses are 100% polarized.

Well, maybe you need to get some that are 110% polarized then. If I understand right, light can be polarized in 2 directions so polarized filters will cut out half the light. But if the light source is bright enough that even half of the light causes lens flare or glare - and it clearly does in the photos you're giving as examples - then that is not enough filtering to demonstrate your point.

The filtered images of the sun as a disc that you are talking about are not consistently bright, suggesting that it is not a solid body.

Nothing to do with what we're talking about, but OK. I thought the FE sun was also a ball which light shines out of in equal directions, the spotlight effect is merely an effect of your made up perspective model. So if that is a problem, it's a problem for you too.
That Wiki page is just another example of you not understanding something and thinking that you have discovered a problem in RE. You haven't.
In brief, the sun is not a simple lightbulb. If you filter it you see all kinds of complexities in its surface.

3310

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 10, 2018, 06:26:09 AM »

He's visiting London this week.
Must remember to take my bottles of piss in tomorrow.

3311

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 09, 2018, 08:33:33 PM »

The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses.

Those examples clearly show a load of lens flare.
The examples I'm talking about of the sun show it as a clear disc, filtered such that all glare and lens flare is not present.
Your examples are not filtered enough to show that.

3312

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 09, 2018, 07:57:58 PM »

What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.

But it doesn't just explain observations, it can predict what the results of other experiments should be. Relativity has become accepted because it explained observations and decades later the predictions of it were being verified.
There's a difference between saying:

"The sun should get smaller as it goes away from us"
"No, because there's an atmospheric effect which magnifies it as it goes away such that it appears the same size"
"Where is your evidence for that?"
"Well...the sun stays the same size..."

Now, if that's a straw man then tell me how. What other evidence is there for this atmospheric magnification? In the Wiki there's a picture of some lights which is clearly has a load of lens flare in, let's see some examples of lights through a filter which recede into the distance and yet stay the same size because you can find pictures of the sun which do just that.

Compare and contrast with the Cavendish Experiment. The theory says that there is a gravitational force between two bodies, you can calculate how much force is predicted by the theory and then test that.

3313

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 09, 2018, 03:13:06 PM »

CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.

Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.

What is normal in the pursuit of truth is to...well, pursue truth.
So where there are unknowns you take steps to try and make them known. I don't see that happening here. And OK, you don't have research budgets, but simple experiments have been proposed here which anyone could do and I don't see any effort from the FE community to do them.

The general way things have been discovered has been:

1) Make observation
2) Create hypothesis to explain observation
3) Devise experiment to test hypothesis.

If the results of 3 are in line with the hypothesis then this adds weight to the hypothesis and as more experiments are defined and match the hypothesis it builds more confidence. If experiments are not in line with the hypothesis then it must be amended or, possibly, scrapped entirely.

I don't see any of 3 going on.

So gravity explains why objects fall towards earth, it explains why the acceleration due to gravity is the same regardless of the mass of the object and it explains why the rate of acceleration varies depending on where you are on earth. It explains how planets orbit the sun and moons orbit their planets. It explains the trajectory of comets and other bodies. As a model of how the universe hangs together it works, it explains observations. Experiments like the Cavendish one give confidence in the idea that bodies attract one another.

For UA to be taken seriously as an alternative it has to be at least as good a model as gravity. It ticks the a couple of the boxes above but that's about it. The rest you start making up stuff like CG to explain the 3rd but it's a bit of a fudge. There's a lot of circular reasoning in FE, it often goes:

This hypothesis explains this observation
Where is the evidence for that hypothesis?
The observation.

It's like the old joke:

1st man in London: This rock repels tigers
2nd man: Does it work?
1st man: Do you see any tigers?

What are you guys actually doing to pursue truth and develop your theories and test them?

3314

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 07, 2018, 07:32:05 PM »

It's coming home, tbh.

(this post expires 8pm on Wednesday)

3315

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation of the earth via both the South Pole and North Pole

« on: July 07, 2018, 06:54:45 AM »

Well there are already a large number of flat earth thinkers on youtube already casting aspersions on the flight. By saying "scientific equipment" cannot be taken aboard the flight, they are saying the flight is fake.

Of course. Because it shows them to be wrong. Standard FE response.
Even in a bipolar FE model I don't see how this flight could be possible without pacmaning.

3316

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon

« on: July 04, 2018, 04:33:40 PM »

I think I've understood the argument...so the claim is that the ship is bobbing up and down on the swell and Bobby has captured 2 images one where it's at the top, so you can see it and the other when it's in the trough so you can't see the bottom of it.

That makes more sense as an argument but I'm not sure big ships bob up and down on the swell like a small one does, they're generally big enough to be more stable.

3317

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon

« on: July 04, 2018, 04:20:51 PM »

Lrn the difference between waves and swell.

It actually doesn't matter in terms of my diagram,

No, because your diagram consists of waves and no swell and bears no relation to reality.

It doesn't matter if it consisted of a hill of beans. This is geometry, it doesn't matter what is in between you and the object you're looking at.
If your viewer height is higher than the highest obstacle in between you and the object then the obstacle will block less of the object than its own height.
My diagram shows why.
It doesn't matter if that obstacle is waves or the swell or a brick wall inexplicably in the middle of the ocean, all that matters it the height of it relative to your viewer height.

If you still maintain I'm wrong then feel free to draw your own diagram showing why I am.
In your diagram you have made the swell artificially high as thought there was a major storm, from the pictures that does not appear to be the case.

3318

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon

« on: July 04, 2018, 03:57:49 PM »

Lrn the difference between waves and swell.

It actually doesn't matter in terms of my diagram, the key thing is viewer height and whether that could have conceivably been lower than the waves or swell or any other obstacle in between him and the ship. If it could have been lower then you have a case, otherwise not so much.

3319

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon

« on: July 04, 2018, 03:30:32 PM »

Can that first picture really be explained by obscuring open ocean swells?

I believe so.

Only if the viewer height is less than the swell height. Otherwise you're looking over it and the swell can't obscure more than it's own height.



So if the swell was less than 3 feet then unless Bobby took the image from a lower height than that, the swell can't have obscured more than 3 feet of the boat.

3320

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 04, 2018, 02:22:56 PM »

It's coming home, tbh.

(this post expires 3pm on Saturday)