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 - stack

Pages: < Back  1 ... 132 133 [134] 135 136 ... 155  Next >
2661
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 12, 2018, 07:32:28 AM »
That seems like an interesting experiment and the parameters seem right. And generous with the 700 mile sun height - Though I suppose you could quadruple+ the tilt calculation to get 3000 miles version?

Ironically, this guy is arguing that non-tilting flat bottom clouds prove a flat earth:


2662
I have not attempted to piece together the smaller flat earth maps that are being used for navigation and GIS work to try and find the configuration of the bigger map. As far as I am aware, it has never been attempted.

Looking for the Flat Earth map is not one of my projects at present time. If you want to make that your goal to dig into these maps and associated assumptions, go ahead. This forum is for your participation.

As we have all gone over many times and has been shown many times, there is no such thing as a flat earth map. And there are no such things as smaller flat earth maps that are being used for navigation and GIS work. What you refer to as "smaller flat earth maps" are, again, for the thousandth time, based on a spherical ellipsoidal model of earth. AKA, a Globe.

2663
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 12, 2018, 06:22:44 AM »
Clouds reflect light like mirrors, but they are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.

My original question is that if the clouds were mirrors, would you see the sun at the horizon? More in the sense of, if the clouds were shiny and reflective, like silver popcorn, would you see the bright reflection of the sun? Yes, you would. You would see the sun reflecting off of the clouds.

This is the point. The point is that the clouds are seeing the sun.

If you were to put your head somewhere where the red area is you would see the sun or the red horizon from that vantage point, or the glow through the clouds. If you were to put your head in a dark area, your view of the sun would be blocked by clouds.

That one part of the clouds is illuminated and another is not, does not tell us that the clouds are being lit from the bottom. It tells us that some parts of the clouds can see the sun and not others.

That those areas of the clouds happen to be the lowest parts of the cloud is expected.

Like I said before, it's not a perspective/distance issue. We're talking about straight rays of light coming from a source that is above, by quite a considerable distance, casting it's rays upward to the underside of a lower object. This applies to the underlit clouds and to the example of a lesser peak casting it's shadow upward beyond the summit of Everest.

No matter how far I move the sun away from the object at a constant height over a flat plane, the rays never break horizontal and cast at an upward angle. The only way for this to occur is that the sun is literally, physically lowering down to or rising up from the plane. Perspective does not address this issue. 


2664
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« on: December 12, 2018, 01:48:39 AM »
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."

Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted. There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical, let me know.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon. If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal. The clouds can see the horizon, and can receive its reddish light. Higher clouds will be higher in altitude and will be seeing the sun higher above the horizon where the light isn't as reddish. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock or a mystery? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.

It's not a perspective issue. No matter how far away the light source is, the straight rays emanating from a higher height (in this case, Sun: 3000 miles, Clouds: 15000') will not shine UP to the underside of the lower object.

Case in point, Max's Everest shadow thread - A peak lower than Everest casts a rising shadow on Everest - The only way that can occur is if the light rays are emanating from a light source lower than the lower peak:


https://media.istockphoto.com/videos/mt-everest-at-sunset-video-id539252432


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11467.0

2665
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?
« on: December 10, 2018, 11:06:09 PM »
Tough call. I have no idea.

I guess logically, if the moon were translucent, we would see stars shining through it all of the time.

2666
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?
« on: December 10, 2018, 10:39:32 PM »
I don't believe it was stated that it happens to all stars.

The Royal Astronomical Society reports this event:



Jupiter reported to occult the moon:



Even Nature has mentions of the stars in front of the moon:



Above article is talking about how it is curious that Jupiter's moon sometimes pass in front of Jupiter.

As far as the lunar occultations mentioned, aren't they referring to a grazing occultation:


2667
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?
« on: December 10, 2018, 10:33:50 PM »
Here's an amazing one:


2668
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sunken Land Effect
« on: December 10, 2018, 09:36:15 AM »
In order to have 0' hidden in the RE view, revealing the remaining 800' that can't be seen, the refraction value I found would be 0.975681.

So for the FE view to have 800' hidden in the image would the FE refraction value have to be -0.975681?

2669
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about Mount Everest
« on: December 09, 2018, 09:44:44 AM »
I'm still hung up on Everest. It seems to me that Rowbotham's ENAG Chapter IX with his "Law of Perspective" as the cause for the observable sunrise/sunset is, well, null and void.

Just simply messing around with the visuals/vectors, no matter the distance of the constant height FE sun, the resulting shadow from a lower peak than Everest will never rise higher than it's own height. Yet we see the shadow rise up to the top of Everest. I think we're in the realm of the sun actually "sets" and we can put an 'X' through chapter IX.

2670
Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FET planets orbit the sun. How?
« on: December 09, 2018, 06:44:06 AM »
Unless I'm misinterpreting this, Pete alludes to gravity as the culprit at least for the planets orbiting the sun. Still not sure what's powering the Sun/Moon rotations. This from Newsweek last year regarding the planets and Flat Earth:

"We got in touch with Pete Svarrior, who runs social media for the Flat Earth Society and has been a member for about six years.

In a Twitter direct message, he wrote: "Our definition of a planet is not too far removed from the mainstream—it's still a spherical body orbiting a star, massive enough to be held together by gravity, but not so massive as to cause thermonuclear fusion by itself."

So far, so good—he even noted later in his message that the number of planets in the universe is still unknown, which the scientists behind planet-hunting projects will surely be pleased to hear. (If you're wondering how Svarrior can believe all planets except his own are round, the account he runs told SpaceX CEO Elon Musk that Mars has been observed to be round, but Earth has not.)

"In our model of the solar system, the planets orbit the sun, which in turn orbits around the Northern Hub," Svarrior continued, again bringing us back to the days before 1543 and the Copernican Revolution."


https://www.newsweek.com/we-asked-two-flat-earthers-what-about-other-planets-728959

And I found this from a couple of years ago. A guy rendered an animation showing the planetary orbits over the AE FE model:




2671
Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FET planets orbit the sun. How?
« on: December 09, 2018, 02:40:52 AM »
According to my calculations, considering we can see Venus transit the sun and the sun is approximately 109 times larger, the sun being 32 miles wide, Venus would be a little more than 1/4 mile wide.

2672
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about Mount Everest
« on: December 07, 2018, 11:38:02 PM »
Here's an FEH model, albeit very crude. If the sun does not set like in the globe earth model, the constant height FE sun will only cast a shadow as high as the lower mountain, no matter perspective or distance.


2673
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« on: December 07, 2018, 11:55:48 AM »
I'm sure your video response is hilarious, but it's broken.
Even though my response is broken, it is not nearly as broken as the current Google Earth depiction of NZ being located in the exact same position as Cook found it.
And when you need to resort to a low content meme for a response you've just defeated your own argument. Not that you ever really had one.
Says who?

When you provide a valid argument for your position it will be addressed accordingly. You have yet to do so and a meme post is further evidence that you have yet to do so.

NZ has moved a couple of meters and the spherically based map/navigation systems of the globe have accounted for it.
No... it hasn't.

Evidence as such has already been provided. Provide an argument that it has not. "No... it hasn't" is not based upon anything factual other than you saying, No... it hasn't.

2674
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Based on what?
« on: December 06, 2018, 10:29:28 PM »
The distance to the sun and moon are still based in the classic methods. Nothing has changed. When we look to see how the distance to the sun and moon were computed we find the methods described in the book.

The Venus radar tests and lunar laser ranging tests were funded by NASA, and we have discussed them before.

This paper you cited was funded by NASA as well. Are there some things that are ok from NASA and some things that aren’t?

Lets see what Dr. David H. Brooks of George Mason University has to say about this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803091936.htm

Quote from: David H. Brooks
The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics.

"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense!"

2675
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:47:00 PM »
Each of the last replies from RE remind of the good ole days of:



I'm sure your video response is hilarious, but it's broken. And when you need to resort to a low content meme for a response you've just defeated your own argument. Not that you ever really had one.

NZ has moved a couple of meters and the spherically based map/navigation systems of the globe have accounted for it.

2676
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The physical impossibility of its creation.
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:10:53 PM »
Your statement regarding thousands of journeys made each year by ship in the Southern Ocean is highly dubious and I am relatively confident that each of these journeys (should they exist) would find a record of miscalculation logged regarding time and distance (likely due to an assumption of earth sphericity).

What's more dubious than making this grand unfounded statement. What evidence are you basing "I am relatively confident that each of these journeys (should they exist) would find a record of miscalculation logged regarding time and distance" on?

In any case, a snapshot as of right now what's going on in the oceans around the globe (courtesy of https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-53.9/centery:-32.5/zoom:2):


2677
Nope. It says right here:

https://www-group.slac.stanford.edu/met/Align/GPS/CCS83.pdf

Quote
    The State Plane Coordinate System was established to provide a means for transferring the
    geodetic positions of monumented points to plane coordinates that would permit the use of
    these monuments in plane surveying over relatively large areas without introducing
    significant error.

    A plane-rectangular coordinate system is by definition a flat surface. Geodetic positions on
    the curved surface of the earth must be “projected” to their corresponding plane coordinate
    positions.
Projecting the curved surface onto a plane requires some form of deformation.
    Imagine the stretching and tearing necessary to flatten a piece of orange peel. In California
    the Lambert Conformal map projection is used to transform the geodetic positions of
    latitude and longitude into the y (Northing) and x (Easting) coordinates of the CCS83.

The State Plane Coordinate Systems are flat surfaces.

The Geodetic positions on the spherical earth model must be projected to their corresponding plane coordinate positions for these spherical earth models to work.

Untrue. "Geodetic positions on the curved surface of the earth must be “projected” to their corresponding plane coordinate positions."

It says nothing like, "in doing it makes these these spherical earth models work."

It's not working in reverse. Simply, a spherical model/datum is used then projected on to a flat map.

2678
Traditional flat map making methods are making it possible. See the following article:

The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections

The above article explains that on the inside of the spherical models such as WebMercator (the web based version of WSG 84), it takes data from a mess of smaller flat maps to present more accurate data. The flat maps are more accurate, as the author describes.

Fact Check: False

No where in the article does it state: "it takes data from a mess of smaller flat maps to present more accurate data."

The article states this about WebMercator (the web based version of WSG 84): "In short, it uses the same WGS84 datum as the GPS system.”

World Geodetic System (WGS84)
"The Global Positioning System uses the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as its reference coordinate system. It comprises of a reference ellipsoid, a standard coordinate system, altitude data and a geoid.
Because the Earth is curved – and in GIS we deal with flat map projections – we need to accommodate both the curved and flat views of the world. Surveyors and geodesists have accurately defined locations on Earth.”

https://gisgeography.com/wgs84-world-geodetic-system/

NAD83 = Flat Map Coordinate System

Fact Check: Misleading

"The North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) is the most current datum being used in North America. It provides latitude and longitude and some height information using the reference ellipsoid GRS80.”

NAD83 is derived from an ellipsoid earth model, not a flat earth model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

Quote
The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones, the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US, with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments. Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

Fact Check: Misleading

You left off the last two sentences from the paragraph:

"Second, the system is highly accurate within each zone (error less than 1:10,000). Outside a specific state plane zone accuracy rapidly declines, thus the system is not useful for regional or national mapping."

NAD83 is a flat coordinate system.

Fact Check: Misleading

It is a datum based upon an ellipsoid earth model, not a flat earth model.

Web Mercator = WSG 84

The full name of Web Mercator is WGS 84 Web Mercator

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Mercator_projection

Quote
While the Web Mercator's formulas are for the spherical form of the Mercator, geographical coordinates are required to be in the WGS 84 ellipsoidal datum.

It's a web-based version of WGS 84. The WGS part is also mentioned in the Earth Not Round! article.

Fact Check: True

Web Mercator & WGS 84 are based on a spherical earth.

NAD83 is one of them. These are all flat coordinate systems for different locations around the earth. It's taking data from flat systems, because as the "Earth Not Round!" article said, it is these flat systems that are more accurate and give out more accurate figures.

Fact Check: False

As shown above, it is not taking data “from flat systems”, it is taking data from, among other things, a spherical (ellipsoid) earth model, not from a flat earth model.

2679
Interesting that the RE peanut gallery is ignoring the fact that the route presented is not a triangle. It's almost as if you weren't interested in resolving the critical contradiction in your self-proclaimed victory.

You obviously did not watch what the challenge was and how MCToon won the challenge.

2680
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Based on what?
« on: December 06, 2018, 08:30:18 AM »
So I went back through it. All I could find was on page 90, that Mars is 15000 miles away:

"Mars must take their proper place among fairy tales, for if the distance to that planet is measured by two simultaneous obser vations, as I have advised for the measurement of the sun, it will be found to be never more than 15,000 miles from the observer, and too small altogether to be inhabited ; too small even for Robinson Crusoe and his man Friday. . . ."

I can only assume he puts the sun at a greater distance, though I can't find it.

And as for the distance to the moon, apparently unknown, p 26:

"By that almost inconceivable blunder real and imaginary angles came into conflict on two different planes, so the triangulation was entirely lost ; and as a consequence the distance of the moon is no more known to-day than it was at the time of the flood."

Pages: < Back  1 ... 132 133 [134] 135 136 ... 155  Next >