141

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 06:12:16 PM »

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......

O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?

If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it.

142

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 03, 2018, 06:04:24 PM »

Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

Dude I feel so honored being your favorite person on the site. *Sarcasm* But fr though eye level would mean stand up straight and look straight out. Horizon will be at your eyes. Basically that's what eye level means.

Not exactly a precise definition. Looking straight out could well be Polaris for all you've defined it. I know you'd reject that as definitely eye level, but my point is, you need to define "straight out" better.

143

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 05:52:58 PM »

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.

Tidal locking can happen, but it fixes the day length to the year length, and Earth isn't tidally locked.

144

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 05:34:58 PM »

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle.

I'm curious to see where you got that. It's definitely not "obvious" as you claim.

It is obvious only after reading my research in the link.

You seem to use this analogy as proof:

The axis of the revolving bullet is constantly directed along the flight of the bullet.

But… it isn't, though, unless it's fired in a perfectly straight line. Earth does not move in a straight line.

145

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 04:52:15 PM »

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle.

I'm curious to see where you got that. It's definitely not "obvious" as you claim.

146

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there are supposedly thousands of satellites orbiting earth, why hasn't the

« on: May 03, 2018, 03:53:25 PM »

Because most of them are fairly small and they're spaced out hundreds of miles apart, so you can't see them with the naked eye from the ISS.

147

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 03, 2018, 01:56:44 PM »

What we get are proofs that rockets are impossible, like this gem here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYfwlzWOYCE

Note how many of the comments are supportive of this gibberish. When that's the evidence against, with the massive weight of evidence for, then a believer has no choice but to retreat into "we just don't know".

That was hilarious. "Fans need an atmosphere to work, and rockets thrust off their exhaust, therefore rockets can't produce thrust in a vacuum." Gee, it's almost like they're creating exhaust on the spot!

148

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Animals

« on: May 03, 2018, 01:28:30 PM »

Nobody is arguing that the Earth isn't a magnet.

149

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: May 01, 2018, 02:09:38 PM »

In that thread I referred to previous discussions on the matter. If there is a question beyond that, and I did not see a coherent one I could respond to in that thread, it will go in queue.

I asked for a working model, then and there. Is that too much to ask?

You're seeing one tree and missing the forest. The point was that as soon as Round Earth seems to corner you, Flat Earthers scurry away and are never seen again.

150

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal

« on: April 30, 2018, 05:16:45 PM »

It's been well over a week now. Tom, are you going to take me up on this, or should this line in the Wiki be removed?

although a few have claimed otherwise they have been soundly disproved by Flat Earthers.

151

Flat Earth Theory / Foucault Pendulum

« on: April 30, 2018, 04:56:42 PM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

I checked that chapter of EnaG, and it completely passes over the fact that the plane of vibration will consistently precess with a period predicted as the rotational period divided by the sine of the latitude of the pendulum.

In fact, I'll do this experiment myself (once I'm home), and invite people at other latitudes to do the same: this is practically zero cost, since you only need a weight and a piece of string.

Since I'm about 10 km south of the 45th parallel, the period should be 33.9 hours, or one day, nine hours, and 54 minutes. It will precess a quarter circle in about 8 hours and 28 minutes.

152

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 08:55:03 PM »

The ISS can only be seen a small amount of time around dawn or dusk, because the earth's shadow gets in the way (according to RET). The reasoning is the same for other LEO satellite bodies. It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.

A satellite in a geostationary orbit would not be in shadow except on an equinox.

And again: A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth

No, but a small prick of light that consistently shows up at the exact place and time that Kepler's equations predict makes the alternative unlikely.

They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.

Lots of software is free.

153

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 06:01:26 PM »

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

Because it asserts that there is a satellite there that could be seen with a telescope.

154

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the reason for perpetuating the round earth?

« on: April 29, 2018, 12:45:37 AM »

So what? “I have not failed 10,000 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.” - Thomas Edison. The history of invention is littered with failures.

With that analogy we should expect many dead astronauts littering the moon's surface from failed missions.

No, because NASA didn't say, "let's use completely untested technology to do a monumental task!" They went more with, "let's take 4 years to incrementally test every part of the plan that we have for this monumental task to make sure that it works and almost nothing can go wrong and that we have failsafes in the event that something does go wrong!"

Who's to say the Sputnik launch didn't provide them the insight they needed to get their own design working. Or any of another dozen reasons. Coincidence does not a conspiracy make.

There is something far worse than a Conspiracy Theorist. It is a Coincidence Theorist.

And what makes that worse exactly?

155

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 29, 2018, 12:28:51 AM »

Incorrect. The markers are often natural in nature, that are a known altitude.

And how do you think that we determine those altitudes? You can either (a) accept that the altitude measurements are accurate, and therefore that Tontogary's experiment is accurate, or (b) concede that Rowbotham's experiments had some inaccuracies and lose one of your biggest "proofs" that the Earth is flat. Oh yeah, there's a (c) for explaining why Rowbotham's experiments are accurate but not Tontogary's, but I have no faith that you will actually do that in any sane way.

156

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The "Google Maps background"

« on: April 28, 2018, 02:27:55 AM »

Can you show your work? Why are you trying to find the biggest FOV possible?

I Googled for FOVs of Nikon cameras. I took the widest FOV because it would give your side the most favorable scenario.

My calculations were pretty rough though, although 100 km² is still a decent estimate for a sense of scale.

Also,

http://www.fooddialogues.com/agriculture-101/

According to the USDA 2012 Census of Agriculture data: There are approximately 2.1 million farms in America; the average size is 434 acres. An acre, by comparison, equates to a little less than one 100-yard length American football field.

434 acres = 1.75634 sq km

What is the average size of a farm in a European country?

Average =/= maximum. As I said, it's the size of a very large farm. There are at least a few that are big enough.

157

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun

« on: April 28, 2018, 02:10:34 AM »

Unknown.

That's a major hole in your theory then, because RE has an explanation that can be explained to a 7-year-old.

158

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 28, 2018, 02:07:22 AM »

Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI

Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?

The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.

Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.

Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?

Tell me, why does the distance to a horizon over water increase with altitude then?

159

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun

« on: April 27, 2018, 05:46:28 PM »

It's clearly answered in the Wiki: the Sun is farther away from the North Pole in the winter.

160

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon Landing?

« on: April 26, 2018, 01:59:59 PM »

The fact we haven't been back in 50 years should prove the hoax.

You can't think of a single other reason why we didn't go back?

Like, say, that each one was six billion dollars? Or that the space race ended and there was no longer massive public interest? Or even, get this, that NASA is gearing up for Mars right now?

And also, it hasn't been 50 years since the last Moon landing, and I'm fairly confident that SpaceX will get theirs in before December 2022.