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 - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 196  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: November 29, 2022, 11:32:22 AM »
You like experts, right?
He does if they back up what he wants to believe. If they don't then not so much.
In fact, if someone backs up what he wants to believe then he doesn't care what their level of expertise is. You know how he operates.
This thread is full of clear bullshit and disinformation, only people will certain agendas or mindsets would fall for it.

2
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17
« on: November 29, 2022, 08:52:19 AM »
I'd recommend "A Man on The Moon" by Andrew Chaikin.
It's a great book which goes in to a lot of detail about the Apollo missions but also the Mercury and Gemini programmes which preceded them. How the astronauts were recruited and so on.

3
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17
« on: November 27, 2022, 07:29:41 PM »
Used to love all that stuff. I was a big fan of the Shuttle programme, dad and me were a lucky enough to see one launch on a trip to Florida. Very lucky actually, it was due to go up before we even arrived in the States but was postponed for some reason.

One of my biggest regrets is never seeing a shuttle launch. Still the most beautiful spaceship I’ve ever seen. I plan on visiting Atlantis at the KSC soon.
On another trip I had tickets for a launch. The one I saw we just parked up miles away, it was spectacular but the tickets we had this other time were as close as the general public can get. And it was a night launch. I was very excited. The way it was sold to us we would be picked up by a coach, taken to the Kennedy Space Centre, have time to look around and then be taken to the place where you watched the launch from.

What actually happened was we only had about 45 minutes to look around by the time we got there, we waited for hours at the viewing point in the middle of the night (and it was a very cold night, for Florida). And then the launch was scrubbed. So I spent a lot of money, missed a night’s sleep, got cold and then didn’t see anything anyway :(.
But at least I saw that other launch. It was spectacular. It went up right at the end of the launch window, because of the distance we saw it well before we heard it. When we did there was this deep rumble like a subway train going under your feet.

Oh, and all the arguments I’ve seen from moon conspiracy theorists are a combination of incredulity and ignorance.

4
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17
« on: November 27, 2022, 06:15:41 PM »
There hasn’t been a man on the moon in my lifetime but I love all this stuff. When I was a kid my dad had a model of a Saturn V rocket, he had an atlas of the moon and I think he had one of Mars. Used to love all that stuff. I was a big fan of the Shuttle programme, dad and me were a lucky enough to see one launch on a trip to Florida. Very lucky actually, it was due to go up before we even arrived in the States but was postponed for some reason. We visited the Kennedy Space Centre on the same holiday and saw a real Saturn V rocket there. Holy shit that thing is big. I’ve seen the piece of moon rock that the US gave the UK too.
The thought that we will visit the moon again while I’m alive makes me slightly giddy with excitement. I grew up with books about the future full of moon bases. Didn’t quite work out like that but some of the other developments like the ISS are arguably equally exciting.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: November 26, 2022, 09:48:32 PM »
I haven't seen this yet, but apparently it's pretty popular, despite being censored by Social Media.
So?

Whacky conspiracy theory bollocks being popular doesn’t make it true.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: November 22, 2022, 04:55:41 PM »
If the earth were flat then why would there be a horizon at all? Why would there be a sharp line beyond which you can't see?
It's not visibility, you can see the top of ships and landmarks beyond the horizon.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 22, 2022, 10:39:36 AM »
The test of a good theory is whether it explains observations and makes good predictions which can be tested.
Gravity does explain why we fall when we jump off something - rather than float upwards or go sideways or just stay hovering.
But it explains so much more than that. It explains why the earth is a sphere, and why all the coherent celestial objects above a certain mass are too.
It explains how the moon orbits us and how we orbit the sun. It explains how stars and planets form.
It's a very powerful theory, Neptune was discovered because of the way perturbations in Uranus's orbit were observed which implied something else was out there.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/175-years-ago-astronomers-discover-neptune-the-eighth-planet
Science should always be open to the idea that a better theory will come along, indeed Einstein did change our understanding of gravity.
But the theory of gravity isn't just some vague idea, it explains a lot of what we observe and can make testable predictions.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 06:32:10 PM »
Why does there need to be a force holding us down? In case we fall off the globe?
If there's no force then when you jump why do you come back down again?
And if it's just because you're heavier than air then as I keep saying, if you lift a ball and then let it go then that ball is heavier than the air above it and the air beside it. Why does it fall downwards rather than go in a different direction?

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 02:34:45 PM »
we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down?
But what force is holding us down?
There has to be a force.
You said things fall because they are “heavier than air”. But why would they fall downwards? They’re heavier than the air above them and to the side of them, why down?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 12:08:13 PM »
Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Planets spin, so that gives us an axis. We can define top and bottom with respect to that axis. We think of north as "top" and south as "bottom" because that's how we draw maps, but it's completely arbitrary. If you're holding a ball you can say the "top" of it is the bit at the...well, top. But then you can turn the ball over and then the "top" is the complete opposite to it was before.

You could use that analogy to everything. Therefore our heads are not at the top as our feet could also be the top. Science does need tome constants and when someone writes up an experiment is it not reasonable to refer to something like 'it took the mixture 45 seconds to rise to the 'TOP' of the glass'? Do scientists use things that have a top and bottom or do they not?
The point is top and bottom are relative terms, like left and right. There are some things where there is a pretty clear right way up for them to be. For those the top and bottom are well defined. For a sphere it's arbitrary. As I said, the spin of a planet gives us an axis, but north being "up" and south being "down" is only a convention, it would make no difference if they were reversed.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 10:56:00 AM »
Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Planets spin, so that gives us an axis. We can define top and bottom with respect to that axis. We think of north as "top" and south as "bottom" because that's how we draw maps, but it's completely arbitrary. If you're holding a ball you can say the "top" of it is the bit at the...well, top. But then you can turn the ball over and then the "top" is the complete opposite to it was before.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 21, 2022, 10:21:48 AM »
He also studied the cases where the hull could not be restored with a telescope. He said that in the cases where the hull could not be restored it was clearly due to a special cause, due to inconsistency, inaccuracy, or weather correlation of such observations.
OK, so he's doing the same thing you are.
Simultaneously claiming that hulls can be restored and they don't really sink behind the horizon...and then in cases when that isn't true, invoking other mechanisms to try and explain it. As I said, this is your problem. You simultaneously claim that observations better match a FE, and then invoke mechanisms to explain why they don't.
I note you haven't commented on Tumeni's point. If you're at a high vantage point and looking down at the top of a lower vessel then your line of sight has to continue on and intersect the sea. It has to, if the earth is flat. Why can you see the sky behind the top of the ship in that picture and not the sea? Why is there a horizon at all on a FE? It isn't visibility as you can see distant ships and land beyond the horizon, you just can't see all of them because they are hidden behind the horizon. You can hypothesise mechanisms to explain that, but in doing so you are acknowledging that observations do not match a FE.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 10:12:10 AM »
Objects fall to earth due to them being heavier than air.
They're heavier than the air above them too. And the air beside them.
Why don't they fall sideways or up?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 18, 2022, 09:27:54 AM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance.

Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.
So Rowbotham's hot take is that as you get further away from things they get smaller and then at some point you can no longer see them?
I mean...yeah, but that's not some breakthrough discovery. What was I wrong about? I said:

1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed

Note the word "behind". If an object is partially behind the horizon you can zoom in as much as you like, you're not going to restore the missing part. In my previous post I showed an image demonstrating that. But I went on to say, and this is the part you keep ignoring, even after I bolded it in my previous post:

I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it.

So yeah, if things are NOT behind the horizon, but are so far away that they are just an indistinct dot then yes, optical zoom will "restore" them.
But as I have demonstrated with my experiment - which is basically the same as the one on your Wiki - that cannot explain the sinking ship effect.
That's where Rowbotham was wrong. Because even if the thin "hull" is at the top it still becomes impossible to see at a certain distance and can be "restored" with optical zoom. Nothing to do with sinking.

TL;DR - the limits of optical resolution do not explain the sinking ship effect. Rowbotham was wrong about that.
And you know that's true, you have a whole other Wiki page which tries to explain the sinking ship effect using other mechanisms like swells or refraction. As I've noted, that second one is strange as refraction generally means you can see more of an object than you would be able to on a globe with no atmosphere.

And I like Tumeni's argument a lot. It's a better one than mine. If you're at a high vantage point looking out to sea and looking down at a lower vessel then your line of sight from you to the top of the vessel must continue downwards to intersect the sea IF the sea is flat. It has to, that's just basic geometry. So that photo is impossible on a FE. I'd suggest a sharp horizon line is impossible on a FE. Why is there a distinct distance at which you can't see the sea any more, what stops you seeing further? It can't be visibility, on a foggy day you can't see the horizon but the sea just fades out, there's no distinct line.

Now, you can invoke EA to explain this I guess, but in doing so you are admitting that the observation is not one would expect on a FE and you have to hypothesise a mechanism to explain that. And that's your fundamental problem. You simultaneously claim the earth is flat because of observations, and then have to invoke mechanisms to explain why observations don't match a FE. So which is it?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 17, 2022, 11:30:19 AM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed - I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it.

Instead of continuously repeating this misunderstanding of optics, there is an experiment you can perform to demonstrate the matter. We provide a home printout experiment for school children at the end of this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution
I'm not sure I need a lesson in optics from someone who has repeatedly in the past claimed on here that sunset is caused by "perspective" and failed to understand that crepuscular rays are caused by perspective.

But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance. While we are here, there's nothing magic about the hull being at the bottom. If it was at the top then at a certain distance it would still be hard to discern because the the issue here, as the title of that Wiki page suggests, is the limit of optical resolution. It's the same reason that the ISS is just a bright dot in the sky and you need some optics to discern the shape of it.
I drew a triangle to represent a sail and a thin line to represent a hull and took two photos of it from across the room. The first photo I took with no magnification, the second I zoomed in:



Oh look, the hull is "restored" in the bottom photo...even though I've put it at the top. Because it isn't "restored" at all, it's just the resolution of my camera (or my eye) isn't good enough to see that thin line from across the room. Zoom in with the camera and there it is.

TL;DR, with distance smaller things are harder to see than bigger things. If you zoom in then you'll see them, if the zoom is good enough and if visibility allows.

The problem you have is that ships DO sink below the horizon, as do distant landmarks and buildings, if they're beyond the horizon. And no amount of optical zoom will restore them. What are they behind? Where's the rest of that ship on the right?



You are simultaneously claiming that observations better match a flat earth than a globe and invoking mechanisms like swells or refraction (which typically makes more of an object visible than you would expect if we didn't have an atmosphere) to explain why observations don't match a flat earth.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Midterms 2022
« on: November 16, 2022, 01:52:19 PM »
You are going to sit here and tell me the widely-held conservative opinion going into the midterms was NOT that they were going to have a red wave, capturing large gains in both the House and the Senate? Bold strategy, Cotton. I mean, there's all the articles and interviews standing in opposition, but then if you wear sunglasses with just the right tint of rose...
Troll’s gotta troll.
Even the right wing media are having a post mortem about the results. Tom knows it was a bad day at the office, of course the character he plays on here can never admit that though

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 16, 2022, 11:57:53 AM »
Given his age it is kinda now or never though.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 16, 2022, 08:21:41 AM »
And Trump announces his 2024 bid.
I didn't expect that after the election results but there you go.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1044234232/trump-announces-run-president-2024
Did Tom just have a Tomgasm?
I don’t think he will win…but I thought that last time!

19
Technology & Information / Re: T-minus 10 hours - Artemis Mission to Moon
« on: November 16, 2022, 07:30:47 AM »
I'll bet you it goes up a couple miles and tips over in flight
Like it would if it was going into orbit around the globe?  :)
Now if you could just prove it landed somewhere or ditched in the ocean then you might be on to something.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Midterms 2022
« on: November 15, 2022, 06:22:27 PM »
Keep telling yourself it went poorly for the Dems though. We all need a little copium sometimes ;)
Some pictures from Tom's mid-term results celebration party


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 196  Next >