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.
Soundly, the author of the Lake Pontcharitrain images, has been debunked here as well, using his own video of another "curving" scene. He is apparently just cherry picking images:
VID
I'm going to quote one of the comments from that video;
"Not sure if your trying to be a retard or actually are one but Soundlys video is clearly stating that the time laps was to show people how the temperature of the water and atmosphere alter refraction .
Everyone knows (well i thought everyone did)that when the temperature of the water and atmosphere above it change so does the refraction effect , the lights are not physically moving the time is passing at an increase speed aka TIME LAPS VIDEO the lights move up or down in the refraction zone due to the difference in water temp and atmosphere temp .
So I have no idea why you uploaded a video showing the effects of refraction and claiming that Soundly was showing earth curve? You really really need to get a brain or at least listen to the first 30 seconds of the original video where Soundly states what he is doing "
Wild Heretic, the man who gave us
"Is the moon an optical illusion"
http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/
And claims that "The Sun is an artificial sulfur lamp which has a light side and a dark side. At the moment I theorize that the dark side could be the moon"
http://www.wildheretic.com/how-is-there-night-and-day/
Tom. Come on. You can find "evidence" to back up any crazy assertion out there on the internet somewhere. Mad people used to shout on street corners, now they write blogs or post on YouTube.
Evidence of what, Tom? Not that light curves "upward."
I did provide the evidence. See the Wild Heretic's Bendy Light page. There is the evidence right there.
The guy in your video "evidence" interprets the results of earth's concavity. The guy in your video argues that because light is randomly "bendy" we can't be sure where anything is. Is that your take on this so-called evidence? Then go in and edit the "Horizon is Always at Eye-Level" page right now, if you're convinced. You put more thought into examining my horizon observation than the results reported by Wild Heretic. Why is that, Tom?
If you're gong to claim to be empirical, you can't find things "interesting" that support your preferred conclusions and reserve critical thought for those that challenge it.
Ball's in your court. If this is convincing evidence as you are claiming, refute Rowbotham. "Bendy light" is nullifies the validity of his observations. Do that and I"ll know you're serious.
I had actually discarded the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory on the same grounds of lack of evidence long ago. However, the Wild Heretic society has published evidence that light is bending upwards, and more things suggesting that too on their website. Trawling the comments section of the bendy light page, accounts are given that this a known phenomenon in surveying and that surveyors are taught to adjust for the error.
Prove it.
Document it.
Cite it.
Test it.
You're an empiricist. Don't swallow something just because it tickles your ears.
Oh, and if you've concluded it's been demonstrated, then abandon your "axiom" that the horizon is always at eye-level, because as argued in the other topic thread, it's incompatible with "bendy light."
Phase I should have been done already. This is a quick thing to do. Merge a few boards, some renaming. We just have to come to some descision.
I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain
The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.
That is just math. That math represents a model with certain axioms. Those axioms need to be proven true before you can use them.
If we change the axioms, we change the math. See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always
Let me sum up my understanding of our conversation so far. I stated my evidence that the sun moving at constant angular velocity indicates we are living on a round earth. You stated it was due to an effect that an object will move at a more constant angular velocity the further away it is. I stated that this is false, provided both practical examples of proof and a mathematical method of proof. You stated that it's "just math" and I'm using "certain axioms," and you posted a link stating that because 20 degrees centigrade is not twice as hot as 10 degrees centigrade, then a yard does not equal 3 feet (one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard). I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I cannot believe you are genuinely interested in the truth. You are merely trying to win an argument by any means. If you don't say something to convince me that you are interested in knowing whether the earth is round or flat, I cannot continue this. Sorry.
I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain
The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.
Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion
The present definition is an expression of the awareness that Holocaust denial and distortion have to be challenged and denounced nationally and internationally and need examination at a global level. IHRA hereby adopts the following legally non-binding working definition as its working tool.
Holocaust denial is discourse and propaganda that deny the historical reality and the extent of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices during World War II, known as the Holocaust or the Shoah. Holocaust denial refers specifically to any attempt to claim that the Holocaust/Shoah did not take place.
WHAT IS HOLOCAUST DENIAL?
The Holocaust is one of the best documented events in history. “Holocaust denial” describes attempts to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Common denial assertions are: that the murder of six million Jews during World War II never occurred; that the Nazis had no official policy or intention to exterminate the Jews; and that the poison gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp never existed.
the Nazis targeted many other groups: for their race, beliefs or what they did.
Historians estimate the total number of deaths to be 11 million, with the victims encompassing gay people, priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters.
Victims Killed
Jews 5-6 million
Poles 1.8–3 million
Soviet Slavs 6 million
Soviet POWs 2.8–3.3 million
Serbs 300,000–600,000
Disabled 270,000
Romani 130,000–500,000
Freemasons 80,000–200,000
Slovenes 20,000–25,000
Homosexuals 5,000–15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 1,250–5,000
Spanish Republicans 7,000
Exactly. Why not? It probably wouldn't cost that much or be that difficult to employ and army of computer programmers to fake these constantly beamed down images of earth so that they match the cloud and contrail and volcano activity that you can see over your own head.
And just because it makes no logical sense to do that - I mean, why keep telling us they're sending up new satellites if all that means is more and more work for themselves? - there's no reason why it can't be true.
NASA has to keep sending up "satellites" in order to keep justifying their budget and keep their conspiracy alive. those rockets are not going to space, they are re-supply ration deliveries headed to the soldiers guarding the ice wall.
Follow the money...
That is the idea behind these "the sun would never set" comments. If you are claiming that it is impossible for something to set because of your perspective model then you need to prove your perspective model.Who is claiming that the sun can never set because of their perspective model?
So in answer to my question, you would want 'proof' that all bachelors in the 'real world' are not married?
Why? Euclid defines parallel lines as those which maintain the same distance from one another. This is just like the definition of ‘bachelor’
The Ancient Greek depiction of perspective has perspective lines which approach each other for infinity.And again, challenging you here on precisely which Ancient Greek text states that 'perspective lines approach each other for infinity'. Should be easy enough.
After Kudlow's comments, Trump added to his string of criticisms against Canada in a series of tweets on Sunday night.
"Fair Trade is now to be called Fool Trade if it is not Reciprocal," he tweeted. "According to a Canada release, they make almost 100 Billion Dollars in Trade with U.S. (guess they were bragging and got caught!). Minimum is 17B. Tax Dairy from us at 270%. Then Justin acts hurt when called out!"
He also asked why he should allow countries to amass "Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for decades, while our Farmers, Workers & Taxpayers have such a big and unfair price to pay? Not fair to the PEOPLE of America!"
He cited "a $800 Billion Trade Deficit" for the U.S., a number he's touted several times.
Trump says the U.S. "protects Europe" and "pays close to the entire cost of NATO."
The president concluded his tweetstorm by saying, "Sorry, we cannot let our friends, or enemies, take advantage of us on Trade anymore. We must put the American worker first!"
So basically your argument is an appeal to authority, something routinely said to be a fallacy on here.Asking people to do experiments over infinite distances is also a diversionary tactic. But I see above you admit you have done no experiments yourself. This is a Religion, Rowbotham is your prophet whose writings cannot be questioned, anything which shows them to be bunk must be wrong.
If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that Rowbotham does experiment with objects in the distance to come up with his explanation of perspective. Rowbotham explains his perspective here, here and here.
We see that Rowbotham does perform observations and trials on distant objects to come up with his explanations and conclusions accordingly.
And, worse, your "authority" is someone whose ideas have not been taken seriously by science and who has been rightly been mostly forgotten by history.
His "experiments" are him just saying "this is what I saw" and then doing a little drawing. Laughable.
What experiments have YOU done? You're an empiricist, right? Why are you taking Rowbotham's word for it?
The consistent angular speed and size of the sun can be explained by a globe earth. There is no flat earth explanation for the angular velocity, and the only way to explain the size is to make up some "atmospheric magnification" effect which by amazing coincidence exactly counteracts the increasing distance of the sun and only works on the sun. It's rationalisation.
Rowbotham's perspective model is bunk. If your flat earth sun makes tighter circles in the northern hemisphere summer and bigger ones in the southern hemisphere summer as outlined in the Wiki then it would mean the sun "sets" at a much closer distance in the northern hemisphere than in the southern one. Makes no sense at all. Unless you are going to go with a bi-polar model in which case I have no idea how your sun moves. I doubt you do either.
You believe in the Ancient Greek theory without evidence.Euclid's theory is based on rigorous argumentation from five core assumptions, plus definitions. He defines parallel lines as lines which are always the same distance from one another. If Rowbotham found lines that did meet one another, then by definition they couldn't have been parallel lines.
I gave the example earlier of 'bachelor'. This by definition is an unmarried man. Would you ask me for 'proof' or 'evidence' that all bachelors that have been and ever will be are unmarried? Is that your point?
