1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars
« on: October 06, 2016, 01:59:46 PM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/health/hurricane-matthew-skull-trnd/
This image is clearly fake, it has been taken by a "satellite"!
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.
This image is clearly fake, it has been taken by a "satellite"!
2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My conclusion.
« on: October 06, 2016, 05:30:34 AM »Why would they document their own fraud? They've been at this a while. It stands to reason they're good at keeping it all a secret.
OK! You guys are always telling about how the NASA is keeping secret and all. But what is your opinion about the other space agencies? I know that many of you believe that NASA is the only space agency in the world, but, well... Do you know that there are more than 70 of them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies
NASA was not even the first space agency founded...
Let's accept for a second that NASA is lying to the whole world
. Could you please explain how is it possible that all the others do the same? Don't you think, in the present geopolitic, that many countries (including, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea among many others) would be soooooo happy to prove the world that the USA are mistaken, or worst, are hidding global secret? Because all of these countries have the launch capability to send rocket in space and to put satellite on orbit... So many of them should have discovered yet that the Earth eventually is not a globe. But guess what? No one have, and guess why? Well, it's quite easy, the Earth is a globe!Thinking that only NASA is worthy to discredit, is really a proof that you guys are 1) Americans and 2) completely unaware of the real world you are living in (but this may be linked to the first point, idk)
3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Private space companies
« on: October 04, 2016, 07:51:00 AM »
Here is the situation in Europe :
Ariane 5 launchers are being made by Airbus Safran Launchers.
Airbus Safran Launchers is owned 50%/50% by Airbus group and Safran group
Airbus group is owned at 26% by government
Safran group is owned at 15.4% by government
So Airbus Safran Launchers is owned at 20% by government, this is far from being a government entity.
Arianespace launches Ariane 5 (and others).
Arianespace is owned (well, will be soon) at 75% by Airbus Safran Launchers and at 25% by other private industrial entities
Therefore Arianepace is owned at 15% by government, this is far from being a government entity.
The fact that government buy rockets to send in space some military satellite is true. But saying that because governments use to buy rocket make the entire rocket industry a government entity is like saying that because government buy trains, the entire train industry is a government entity.
Of course government put a lot of money into the space program, but this is to ensure the autonomous access to space! But you know that (at least in Europe), the space industry makes the majority of its money thanks to commercial satellite?
Also, so that you could freak out! Do you know that Airbus Safran Launchers is responsible for the M51 manufacturing? Because yes, ICBM are the same technology as rocket. So why not use the people capable of manufacturing it to do so, and yes, this is a private industry!
Ariane 5 launchers are being made by Airbus Safran Launchers.
Airbus Safran Launchers is owned 50%/50% by Airbus group and Safran group
Airbus group is owned at 26% by government
Safran group is owned at 15.4% by government
So Airbus Safran Launchers is owned at 20% by government, this is far from being a government entity.
Arianespace launches Ariane 5 (and others).
Arianespace is owned (well, will be soon) at 75% by Airbus Safran Launchers and at 25% by other private industrial entities
Therefore Arianepace is owned at 15% by government, this is far from being a government entity.
The fact that government buy rockets to send in space some military satellite is true. But saying that because governments use to buy rocket make the entire rocket industry a government entity is like saying that because government buy trains, the entire train industry is a government entity.
Of course government put a lot of money into the space program, but this is to ensure the autonomous access to space! But you know that (at least in Europe), the space industry makes the majority of its money thanks to commercial satellite?
Also, so that you could freak out! Do you know that Airbus Safran Launchers is responsible for the M51 manufacturing? Because yes, ICBM are the same technology as rocket. So why not use the people capable of manufacturing it to do so, and yes, this is a private industry!
4
Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken
« on: October 04, 2016, 07:31:54 AM »Personally I think if you really did see what you claimed you made a mistake and you were not looking at the beach at Light House Park 23 miles away, but somewhere between Fort Ord Dunes and Monterey Beach Parks about 4 miles away. It would also explain how you were able to place the telescope only 20" above the water. Since on that side of Lover's Point there is a small beach. Unlike the side that would give you a view of the Light House Park which has a steep rocky drop off of at least 4 feet.
This is also my personnal opinion
5
Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken
« on: October 04, 2016, 06:15:39 AM »
Just playing the devil's advocate...
Actually, these kind of details could be reachable with a relatively small amateur telescope. The resolution power of a optic device is given as R=1.22*lambda/D were lambda is the wavelength of the observed light and D is the diameter of the optic device.
Taking a diameter of 0.0025m (which is about the size of the human pupil), and a wavelenght of 550nm (which is the middle of the visible ligth), you find a maximum resolution of about 55", which is close to the 1' often used here and there.
A 25cm frisbee at 37km has a angular diameter of about 1.5"
The theorical maximal resolution power of a D=0.1m telescope is about 1.4".
Taking into account a very good manufactured material and optics (miror and lens) plus very good atmospheric condition. It could theorically be possible to access this kind of details with a small amateur telescope.
However (stop playing the devil's advocate), being the proud owner of such a telescope I would like to mention some points :
- Very good atmospheric condition are extremelly rare, particularly when doing "horizontal" observation. This is why any astronomer will prefer to observe object not to close to the horizon, because of the atmospheric turbulence. This leads to a real bad degradation of the image quality
- Even if this level of details are indeed reachable with some small diameter (under very unlikely atmospheric conditions and with perfect optic (I'm coming back to that later)), we are talking about details the same size that the power of resolution, this means that the details Tom are describing are just the smallest point possible in the fiel of view of is observation (or he is using a very powerful magnification optic, and all he can see is a big blur). And I will not talk here about the thermal stability of the mirror and the otpical abberation here...
- This kind of telescope, even for a small amateur one, are quite massive, not so easy to move, balance and install. I would be very interrested in viewing some pictures of how you are doing this experiment Tom. Particularly, to realize observation as close as 50cm to the sea level, it means that the feet of the telescope are in the ocean and Tom too. I would personnally never do that, and I am convince that no one would do that with his telescope particularly when you are using ultra-good quality optics that are really, really, really (I mean really!) expensive and absolutely not (salt!)-water proof... The other solution is to reduce the height of the telescope at its minimum, but mine cannot go as low as 50cm to the ground, and it would be very impratical to observe like that... (particularly when seeing what the location looks like!)
- Maybe Tom is using a 300 mm telescope, which is much more realistic to reach this kind of detail, but now the telescope itself becomes very expensive, and it is probably not the better idea anyone could have to put it into the ocean, not speaking of the above point that would become even more problematic for such a large telescope...
- Oh, and I almost forgot, the Earth is round, so you cannot see any detail on a beach 37 km away when 50cm above sea level (well, only under unlikely atmospheric conditions, maybe, but this is non consistent with Tom saying that he could do that all day long!)
Actually, these kind of details could be reachable with a relatively small amateur telescope. The resolution power of a optic device is given as R=1.22*lambda/D were lambda is the wavelength of the observed light and D is the diameter of the optic device.
Taking a diameter of 0.0025m (which is about the size of the human pupil), and a wavelenght of 550nm (which is the middle of the visible ligth), you find a maximum resolution of about 55", which is close to the 1' often used here and there.
A 25cm frisbee at 37km has a angular diameter of about 1.5"
The theorical maximal resolution power of a D=0.1m telescope is about 1.4".
Taking into account a very good manufactured material and optics (miror and lens) plus very good atmospheric condition. It could theorically be possible to access this kind of details with a small amateur telescope.
However (stop playing the devil's advocate), being the proud owner of such a telescope I would like to mention some points :
- Very good atmospheric condition are extremelly rare, particularly when doing "horizontal" observation. This is why any astronomer will prefer to observe object not to close to the horizon, because of the atmospheric turbulence. This leads to a real bad degradation of the image quality
- Even if this level of details are indeed reachable with some small diameter (under very unlikely atmospheric conditions and with perfect optic (I'm coming back to that later)), we are talking about details the same size that the power of resolution, this means that the details Tom are describing are just the smallest point possible in the fiel of view of is observation (or he is using a very powerful magnification optic, and all he can see is a big blur). And I will not talk here about the thermal stability of the mirror and the otpical abberation here...
- This kind of telescope, even for a small amateur one, are quite massive, not so easy to move, balance and install. I would be very interrested in viewing some pictures of how you are doing this experiment Tom. Particularly, to realize observation as close as 50cm to the sea level, it means that the feet of the telescope are in the ocean and Tom too. I would personnally never do that, and I am convince that no one would do that with his telescope particularly when you are using ultra-good quality optics that are really, really, really (I mean really!) expensive and absolutely not (salt!)-water proof... The other solution is to reduce the height of the telescope at its minimum, but mine cannot go as low as 50cm to the ground, and it would be very impratical to observe like that... (particularly when seeing what the location looks like!)
- Maybe Tom is using a 300 mm telescope, which is much more realistic to reach this kind of detail, but now the telescope itself becomes very expensive, and it is probably not the better idea anyone could have to put it into the ocean, not speaking of the above point that would become even more problematic for such a large telescope...
- Oh, and I almost forgot, the Earth is round, so you cannot see any detail on a beach 37 km away when 50cm above sea level (well, only under unlikely atmospheric conditions, maybe, but this is non consistent with Tom saying that he could do that all day long!)
6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the Earth flat? Experiment
« on: September 30, 2016, 02:37:50 PM »
Fortunatly I quoted Intikam before he edited his post!
He first refuted the existence of the South Cross and the South star. I understand it may be debated for the "South star", but of course not for the south cross.
He first refuted the existence of the South Cross and the South star. I understand it may be debated for the "South star", but of course not for the south cross.
7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the Earth flat? Experiment
« on: September 30, 2016, 06:32:19 AM »
I would like to be given the same recognition than others and be officially written on your list.
Thanks
Thanks
8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the Earth flat? Experiment
« on: September 30, 2016, 06:13:08 AM »Rounder, I am a Southern hemispherer, and yes the Southern Cross is clearly visible and rotating clockwise around the South Star, Cygma Octantus as I type this here in South Africa. Intikam will never believe anything from anyone in the Southern Hemisphere since we are all brainwashed!
You are saying lie. There is nothing as Southern Cross and South star.
Yeah, it's playground argument time!
I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!
9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 30, 2016, 05:58:01 AM »Chemistry: Try diluting a solute by adding water to it. As long as you keep adding water, the concentration will approach zero, but will never actually reach it.
This is actually quite a relevant comparison. The angle with the horizon is related to the height:distance ratio of the object. For the angle to be zero, the ratio of height to distance has to be zero.
In both examples, you are trying to make a ratio approach zero by adding to one side. In the chemistry example, you are trying to make the ratio of solute to solvent go to zero by adding solvent. The ratio will continually get smaller, but will never actually reach zero since you aren't actually removing any solute. In the perspective example, you are trying to make the ratio of height to distance go to zero by adding distance. It will continually get smaller, but will never actually reach zero since the height isn't actually decreasing.
It could equally be argued that when you replace 100% of a chemical solution with water, the resulting concoction will be 100% water. Your example tells us nothing about what is actually occurring with perspective.QuoteCounter challenge: Draw a right triangle that has a non-zero height and width and one of the angles is zero. This is what you are implying is happening during sunset on a flat earth. Good luck!
The premise here is that the ancient math of the greeks is fallable, so of course their math fails on that point.
OK, so please Tom, be constructive and with your great wisdom, explain us how it is possible that something, with a finite diameter, at a finite height of a finite plan can reach a zero elevation without modifying its height.
10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 29, 2016, 10:22:54 AM »
And (just to remind) I am still waiting for an explanation about the constancy of the angular speed of the sun, which is totally inconsistent with FE model!
11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 26, 2016, 05:22:20 AM »You should probably address Tom's assertion, in reply 79, that since we do not see perspective lines crossover in reality, it is illogical to assume they should. Otherwise he will just behave as if he has the higher ground.
Since there is a decent chance he will miss the point, I will clarify:
"Two lines angled towards each other must touch" is no more logical than "two lines angled towards each other must cross". I think both are illogical. Therefore, he is only left with the argument "the lines are seen to touch, therefore they touch", which assumes his eyes are perfect. Which is just silly.
I think Tom is not aware of asymptote!
12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 25, 2016, 09:48:58 AM »When the sun is overhead at noontime the sun is at 90 degrees and at sunset the sun is at 0 degrees. There are your angles for the sun. It's quite simple.
Yes we agree on that, this is a fact! On flat earth to do so, the sun should seems to accelerate up to noon and decelerate afterwards. Which is not the case as any observer could verify. I prove it on the other thread.
So please prove it otherwise.
13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 23, 2016, 01:43:01 PM »What you've just said is also exactly what your FE opponents have been saying. You both are using science, scientific explanation, empirical data, tests, etc.....
I'll come back on this, but please stop saying that FE "opponents" have provided anything using "science", "scientific explanation" and "empirical data". All that have been presented is either really bad science, profound misanderstanding of basic maths or a complete joke. If you were a real "truth seeker", instead of trying to explain that both side have good argument, you should analyze in depth all arguments and check there validity.
Some basic maths have been provided in another thread. This is clearly a proof that the earth is not flat. There's no debate! Anyone can check the maths, it's only basic trigonometry, and anyone can observe that the sun is not accelerating in the sky up to noon and deccelerating afterwards. Therefore the Earth is not flat.
And finally, let me remind you that only one counterexample is necessary to prove that an affirmation is wrong and that tens have been presented to FE believers. If you really think that the arguments advanced by FE are legitimate, it means that you are denying the laws governing our world (beginning with very simple maths as geometry).
So please, instead of trying to explain that everyone have good arguments (according to you) in every single thread. Could you please try to be more constructive and try by yourself some calculation or providing some "scientific explanation" (either to explain how the world is in FE or GE), so that we would have something concrete and scientific to discuss? First excercie could be to reproduce the topic about the elevation and the speed of the sun and confirm ("or not") the results? Just do that and you will be convincs that the earth is a sphere. Don't bother to ask question if you have, I would be glad to help you (if needed of course!)
14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 20, 2016, 01:45:58 PM »You do know that as you traverse along the trajectory of the perspective line that two points that appeared to meet are revealed as not actually having met? You can test this by standing on some train tracks and having a friend go to the point you see as having intersected. They will report back that indeed you are mistaken. Don't trust me though, try it yourself!
Please use a closed down railroad when doing so
!
15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got proof(s) that isf/are TRUE ONLY for Globe OR Flat earth?
« on: September 19, 2016, 01:31:04 PM »Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole
Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...
For truth seekers, all these topics have also been discussed and argued by FEs, and their claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts are appears to be also valid, but not all are well argued, just like those of GEs.
I haven't seen yet one FE "claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts that appear to be also valid". I would really like to see one.
And please, can you provide me only one "low level" subject like any I have mentionned above for which GE doesn't have any explanation?
And then, I'm sorry but I will just take one example. I have not read any information from FE related to the sun angular speed through the day. Could you explain me how the sun could be moving with a constant angular speed in a FE model?
16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got proof(s) that isf/are TRUE ONLY for Globe OR Flat earth?
« on: September 19, 2016, 12:47:44 PM »
Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole
Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole
Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...
17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Private space companies
« on: September 12, 2016, 10:41:38 AM »The signals are deployed through an assortment of terrestrial methods, such as ground based antennas and stratellite dirigibles.
The way you said it seems like a certitude for you... Can you proove it?
A contracting company building a rocket for NASA isn't evidence of anything. The rockets used are real.
First of all I am not working for NASA. But I think it can be easy for you to tell that any space organization is lying to us. Be they Russian, European, Indian, Brazilian, Japanese, Israelian or Chinese... This is obviously a profound flaw in the understanding of the global geopolitics, but whatever...
You didn't answer by question. Why would private companies spent billions of dollars per year to build something useless that can be achieved by making ground tower?
18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some maths regarding sun displacement in the sky
« on: September 06, 2016, 03:38:03 PM »Quote
The point of all this: those of you proposing optical effects to explain the difference between observed sun and moon locations and where those bodies should be above your flat earth? THIS is what your optical effect must achieve.
And this is true only from the place you calculated it. If you do this for other latitude, you will find out that this effect also depends of the latitude. So there is not even a universal law of optical deviation (which should be the minimum... I expect the FE deviation to be the same if the total length of the air/aether got through by the sun light whatever the latitude...
Said differently, in the FE theory, the deviation of the sun at the same "real" elevation angle differ if you are at New york or Sidney, whereas the light is passing through the same amount of air/aether, with the same angle. Therefore the law of deviation of the light is not universal ans you will have a really bad time trying to explain that.
19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some maths regarding sun displacement in the sky
« on: September 02, 2016, 01:06:21 PM »BEFORE YOU SAY THAT THE CAD PRESENTATION IS "DEAD WRONG", BETTER PRESENT SOMETHING CONCRETE AND VERIFIABLE DATA. YOUR JUDGEMENT IS HASTILY DONE, IMPAIRED! ARE GLOBE EARTHERS OR SUPPORTERS LIKE THAT? WHEN RUNNING OUT OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT, THEY WOULD JUST RESORT INTO SWEEPING AND HASTE CONCLUSION THAT SOMETHING, THOUGH HOW CLEARLY PRESENTED TO PROVE SOMETHING, IS "DEAD WRONG", JUST LIKE THAT? O C'MMON, WHO WILL BELIEVE AND LIKE YOU, MAN? NO ONE I GUESS..
OK, SHOW YOUR COREL, AND LET THIS TECHSIE GUY OR ENGINEER REBUT YOUR ACCUSATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS. WELL, LET THE BALL GO ROLLING. LET'S SEE WHAT'S THE OUTCOME. I JUST HOPE EVERYTHING WOULD TURN INTO BENEFITS FOR TRUTH SEEKERS.
You should apply to yourself what you are advising to the others, because what you wrote here sums up quite well the flat earther, and particularly your behavior. I provided, "corel", and "data", and yet you don't seems to have even look at them or produce any constructive criticism on it...
MEANWHILE, REFRAIN FROM HASTY CONCLUSION, YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED OR PROVED ANYTHING YET. IF I WERE YOU, BETTER GET MOVING YOUR ASS AND PRESENT SOMETHING IN YOUTUBE FOR OTHERS TO SEE YOUR STUFF.
GOOD LUCK, MAN!
Once again, are you sure you are not talking about yourself here?
And seriously, is youtube the only acceptable media to proove something nowadays?
And please, stop writing in capital letter, this is really unpleasant to read.
20
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some maths regarding sun displacement in the sky
« on: September 02, 2016, 08:18:14 AM »[...]
AND DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONFUSED AND DECEIVED BY SOME PEOPLE HERE TRYING TO USE GRAPHS AND LINES, BUT WITH INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, EMPIRICAL DATA AND LOGICAL REASONING/EXPLANATION.
[...]
If using math and science to prove things is not authorized in FE theory, then... Well...
Could you just inform me what kind of "insufficient evidence"; "enprirical data" or "logical reasoning" you need to fully understand my post, I'll be glad to provide it to you!
Another think I find very funny is how the sentence I quoted should actually refere to flat earthers...
[...]
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRAW OR ANALYZE IT YOURSELF IN KNOWING IF THE SUN IS 93M AWAY FROM EARTH OR IF IT IS THAT BIG (AND ALSO NOT MOVING?
[...]
What a great advice! This litterally means : "Don't think by yourself, don't try to analyze the world yourself and take my word for the truth, but please, don't try to check it!"
I'll give a better advice to all people reading this. Draw and analyze yourself, search and explore for information, and try to understand the world instead of taking the words of other for the truth. Form your own opinion!