1301

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 16, 2020, 11:22:21 AM »

Storm, Tom - does "eye level" form an imaginary line in space, parallel to your presumed flat plane?

i.e. if I construct a 100m tower, right on the beach, right at the edge of the sea, and I construct another, 1000m out into the sea, of exactly the same height, then do you agree a sightline between the tops of the two towers is a line in space, deemed to be parallel to the (presumed) flat plane of the sea below?

https://imgur.com/GKu4JnZ

Simple Y/N, if you could... 

1302

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 16, 2020, 11:05:34 AM »

Just a friendly suggestion to those who keep posting images of the horizon at great heights to attempt to show a dropping horizon on a 'ROUND EARTH.'

You might wanna stop posting those images. All they are doing is supporting my argument emphatically.

Do you all not realize you are showing a horizon that is many miles in length without a single hint of curvature?

Just a friendly suggestion - look back at my post #61 and try and explain how this observation could possibly be made on a Flat Earth - the observer was at 210m, the focal height of the lighthouse is 73m. If we presume the seas around to be flat, how could the sightline from observer to lighthouse, if continued beyond the lighthouse, miss the water? Why can't the observer, some 137m above the lighthouse, see the water beyond it? Simple geometry dictates that he should, IF the surface is flat ...

This shows the geometrical principle - non-parallel lines must meet.

https://imgur.com/dRtnc3D

This shows the situation, but with labels applicable to another observation; same principle applies

https://imgur.com/CXUvjwa

Are you aware that those images should show 'SOME' very distinguishable curvature at those heights if the Earth were round?

No, they should not. Earth too big.

Mostly, cameras zoomed in or using big telephoto. The more you zoom in, the less curve is in frame. The more you zoom out, or the further you move away from the surface, the more in frame.


Edit to correct quoted post number to 61

1303

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 16, 2020, 10:50:58 AM »

Einstein announced: "I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
(-Albert Einstein Kyoto University, Japan Dec.14, 1922)

His point being that the only way to prove the movement of the Earth would have to be through mathematical equations. No empirical experiment could prove it.

No empirical OPTICAL experiment, Einstein said. Dontcha think he was being quite ... precise, to specify that? He strikes me as a precise person, to single out a a specific TYPE of experiment.... but not exclude other types. 

"Optical", using the optics of 1922. We've moved on since then, so quoting what Einstein felt was the be-all and end-all 98 years ago becomes less and less relevant with each passing year.

1304

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 15, 2020, 12:17:46 PM »

What happens below the engine is that thrust is generated by the rocket.

..and stabilisers ON the rocket, once the rocket is in motion, have no relevance to whether or not the exhaust generates thrust below the rocket in a vacuum. Do they?

1305

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 15, 2020, 01:01:04 AM »

Air pressure has an affect on the rocket flight.
If it didn't, the rocket would not need flight stabilizers.

We're not talking about that, though.

We're talking about what happens below the engine, not the airflow over the body of the craft once it is in motion ...

1306

Flat Earth Community / Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris

« on: February 14, 2020, 05:58:18 PM »

The ability of humans to perceive objects is roughly limited to 350 km, regardless of the shape of the earth.

I have performed a similar triangles measure of the sun.
I believe it is approximately 5,000 miles away from my location during the summer months, at around 10:00 am.

Do you consider the Moon to be closer than the Sun?
Do you agree that Venus and Mercury have been observed to transit between Earth and Sun?

1307

Flat Earth Community / Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris

« on: February 14, 2020, 12:43:00 PM »

I have not measured it by any other method.

I can state that you cannot see an object once you are far enough away from that object to see it because it is a verifiable fact that once you are far enough away from an object to see it, you can no longer see it.

Can you state the latter as a reason for not seeing Polaris, when you have no information for the former to confirm that the actual distances make a material difference?

1308

Flat Earth Community / Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris

« on: February 14, 2020, 12:32:29 PM »

I have not measured it using the similar triangles method.

Have you measured it with any other method?

If not, how can you cite "Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object." as a reason for not seeing Polaris? 

1309

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 14, 2020, 12:26:59 PM »

Newton's laws - thrust is the reactive force acting in response to the force produced by the rocket exhaust encountering the pressure/resistance of the atmosphere . Equal and opposite .

... but the atmosphere clearly is not "resisting". This is clear from the engine test video. The atmosphere is a passenger, being dragged along for the ride by the exhaust. The exhaust displaces huge amounts of atmosphere, and more is drawn down from above the engine to compensate. If the atmosphere was truly providing a resistant "base" for the exhaust to bounce off, there'd be no reason for air movement from above the engine in this direction.

1310

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 14, 2020, 12:22:05 PM »

It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?

Do you accept your statement regarding air under pressure could provide no resistance was in error?

No, my question is a hypothetical, based on your assertion. I don't agree that the air does resist the exhaust, but I'm asking you to show how it would affect the craft, even if it did.

1311

Flat Earth Community / Re: why can’t the people in south see Polaris

« on: February 14, 2020, 12:18:53 PM »

Once you are far enough away from an object, you can no longer see that object.

How far away do you reckon Polaris is, and by how much does that distance vary by people moving upon what you regard as the Flat Earth?

1312

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: February 14, 2020, 12:16:44 PM »

Use of lighter than air craft and balloons . Nasa uses these , and probably others too
https://ravenaerostar.com/products/balloons-airships

For clarity, is this "information to substantiate your conjecture", and/or "details of signal broadcasting positions" ?

Y/N?

1313

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 13, 2020, 11:32:02 PM »

It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?

1314

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 13, 2020, 11:23:09 PM »

... Pelosi has made them look like a bunch of nut-jobs. What a ghastly witch. Neutral voters will be turned off by the dems ... crazy AOC with her starey eyes, Schiff with his boggley eyes, Sanders with his wild eyes or Biden with his very very old and tired eyes.

Trump is not a picture of perfection, not by a long chalk...

1315

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 13, 2020, 11:21:21 PM »

Didn't Barr know how loose Trump was with twitter before he accepted the job? He was tweeting sensitive military information, you really think he gives a shit about protecting the discretion of the Justice Department? You make a deal with the devil and you accept the consequences.

Not that I believe Barr for a minute that he hasn't made moves that were politically motivated. That's what makes this particular example of someone in Trump's cabinet whining about how Trump does things so delicious.

Some folks are of the opinion that what Barr really meant was that if Trump would shut up on Twitter, Barr could do his job of making things work in Trump's favour, and bending the rules for him, a lot easier ....

1316

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 13, 2020, 07:49:22 PM »

The size of the Moon is known from visual triangulation from Earth, and from 50+ years of sending craft to and around it.

We know the distance to the Moon from laser ranging, and from 50+ years of sending craft to and around it.

We know that the Sun must be farther than the Moon by virtue of solar eclipses. 
We know the Sun must be farther than Mercury and Venus when they pass between us and the Sun (when they transit the Sun)

1317

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 13, 2020, 06:34:12 PM »

Quite simply,.....they can't.

Says who? You?

Again, why should we take you at your word on this, when all you have to offer is textbook graphics and disbelief?

Also, the distance to the stars needs to be taken into account; if you take a piece of paper, and draw a one-inch diameter circle on it, and presume that circle to represent the Earth going around the Sun, then the Big Dipper, the constellation containing our Pole Star, is generally speaking (for the stars within are not all at the same distance from us), at that scale, would be 2000 miles above the piece of paper.  In actuality, 340,982,000,000,000 miles or so.

1318

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 13, 2020, 05:24:53 PM »

Ok, Fellow Flat Earthers. Welcome back.

Today we're discussing why Mt. Everest cannot be seen from Indonesia with the naked eye;

So are you done with yesterday's discussion, where you jumped in to try and tell everyone about how their eyes work, but gish-galloped to other stuff when I took issue with it?

Simple Yes or No, please, so's I know whether or not to try and continue from where we left off...

1319

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: February 13, 2020, 05:14:02 PM »

I surmise that signal broadcasting positions are in much the same locations as cell phone towers.

Why do you "surmise" this, and why should we place any credence on your surmision?

If you surmise that there are different, additional towers for GPS as well as the cell towers, do you have any confirmed sightings?

1320

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 13, 2020, 02:50:52 PM »

the claim you are making is scientifically impossible.

What "science" shows that what I can actually SEE - the "clouds of smoke, steam, exhaust product and AIR being driven AWAY from the engine at high speed" is impossible? How can it be "impossible" when I/we can see it actually happening?

Air, at 14.7 psi, will provide resistance regardless of the amount of force acting on it.

Yet the video shows vast amounts of air being driven away from the engine, and not providing resistance.

What reason is there for it to do this, if the air below is actively resisting the exhaust flow?

Why do YOU think there is airflow from above the engine in such vast quantity, at such speed?

Why wouldn't air under roof start flowing the same direction as all other air?

I fail to see the mystery you are proposing.

I fail to see how you can miss the contradiction in what you say. You claim the air is providing resistance to the exhaust, while accepting that vast quantities of air are being drawn from above the engine once the exhaust displaces the non-resistant air below it.

How can the air be providing resistance when it has been summarily dismissed by the rocket exhaust, blown away with ease?