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 - Tom Haws

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
1
This is just for fun since anybody can do it at any time. This is a test of the view from Malibu to Torrance,

Go to Corral Canyon Bridge on Pacific Coast Highway at Malibu. Go ahead. Do it in Google Street view.
34.0333365,-118.7345869

Look at the panorama from east to south.

The mainland is visible at about 3:30 to 4:00.
Palos Verdes Rolling Hills is visible at about 4:30, not quite connected to the mainland. You can't see Torrance or any white shoreline.
When conditions are right, Catalina Island is visible at about 5:30.




Step back a couple of miles and up 1600 feet to

Corral Canyon Road near (above or below) Baller Motorway
34.068006,-118.7533566

Palos Verdes Rolling Hills is visible, very much connected to the mainland. Continuous white shoreline is visible with Torrance above it.
When conditions are right, Catalina Island is visible (not well on this day).



No assertions. Just a fun experiment from home. It might be fun to post other similar location experiments in this thread.


2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 20, 2017, 11:44:22 PM »
Tell me Tom Haws, who discovered the flat earth society and created an account 3 weeks ago and has bawwed about its existence ever since, of us, who seems more like the troll?

I'm not questioning your dedication to TFES. I am trying to get to yes. But still you evade and posture.

Is London outside the USA? Do we agree on that?

If that's too silly for you to dignify, can you find anything to agree on?

3
So here is my question: if the planet rotates in a circular motion, why would people not fly off the edge of the planet?

Gravity vastly overwhelms centrifugal force, or in more orthodox language, provides vastly more force than required for centripetal acceleration. I'll give you numbers if you want.

or die of the rapid changes in acceleration?

If there were any changes in acceleration, you would feel them indeed! Why do you think that anybody is suggesting changes in acceleration? Mainstream physicists are not proposing this.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 20, 2017, 08:52:23 PM »
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.

This is silly and trollish. And you know it. As I have said many times before, and it's even implied in my Title at the left, the earth is for many purposes close enough to flat. And you know it. You know that no amount of trimming of an airplane makes any predictable difference 10 miles out. An airplane cannot be flown at constant altitude for long at all without guidance. You may as well try to ride a bicycle with a locked (trimmed) steering wheel or drive 1 mile down a straight freeway with a locked automobile steering wheel.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What makes the Earth so special?
« on: December 20, 2017, 08:42:05 PM »
So the Earth is flat. But almost every other natural celestial body is spherical. What makes the Earth the only unique one?

FE flippant answer: Why shouldn't it be unique? Read Earth is Not a Globe.

Welcome to our world!

Yeah, I will give you one more warning to refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Next is a 3-day ban.

If you aren't going to add anything to the thread, then refrain from posting.

Actually, that was not low content. It was pro-bono clerical assistance. You can ban me if you please, but it will not be seen well. I will, however, apologize for calling your responses flippant when in reality you must get worn out from the continually repetitive questions. I would think you would count your blessings and thank the heavens every day that nice folks like me give your answers for you. I will do so in a more gracious way in the future.

To reiterate, your issue is not with any lack of content in my post, but in my lack of tact. Let's be clear, and I will take the reproach duly.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: December 20, 2017, 08:37:52 PM »
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.

But you need to remember, just as Zetetic science is proven wrong in something, does not mean that it gives that theory up, it only means that it will pursue means to correct it that correlate to the main theory- hence only making the the original theory stronger with updated and new theory.

Well put. And it's important to clarify that I, for one, am not here for TB or any other Flat Earther. I am here for the highly suggestible newcomers who need well-reasoned refutations of the FES concoctions.

You are sitting on your porch, watching a plane fly into the distance. The plane is at an altitude of 5,000 feet at all times. Your porch has a 3.5 foot high fence/deck railing along its perimeter. Your house is located just a little above sea level, looking into a flat horizon. As you sit you can see a bright sky above and you can see the horizon below the top level of your deck railing and between the slits.

It is possible for the receding plane to start off overhead, and as time progresses, eventually appear below the top of the 3.5 foot high deck railing as it approaches the horizon. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

This example above should show how silly the question is; and how the result is clearly due to perspective. You may as well be curious how you can raise your hands above the level of any clouds you see in the distance and be lost in wonder how your 5 foot tall hands can seem to get above clouds which are thousands of feet high in the distance, because this scenario would be as equally confounding, based on your understanding of the world.

TB, I want to go back to this important post of yours. I have a few questions:

1. Which question are you saying is silly?
2. The railing is higher than your eyes, as implied by your saying "you can see the horizon below" it?

Before you answer, I can confirm that any object whatsoever that goes far enough away will be seen below the railing. Even the entire universe, if seen far enough away, would be below that railing if the railing is "above" (toward your forehead from) your eye level. This is due to the contrived positions of your eyes and the railing and the shrinking angle of view that is occupied by receding objects. It's not due to any actual shrinking or deflection of those objects or your line of sight. Do we agree or disagree?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 20, 2017, 08:25:20 PM »
Apology accepted.
An odd way to apologize for misreading another statement's and intent, but I'll take what I can get.

Reminder, looking for hard proof for the sun moving at 15° degrees an hour along the solar ecliptic, different than the vertical ecliptic mentioned/referenced by Thork earlier in the thread. Having a small touch of trouble as he doesn't seem ready to accept the special build sundial posted by Jocelyn.
I was the one looking for hard proof. The real world times between the various degrees of twilight blew that round earth assumption apart. I was left wanting though.  :'(
No twilight shows it doesn't move at 15° per hour upon the path perpendicular to the horizon. Which was never claimed, that was your strawman assumption, NOT the RE assertion. The sun needs to be tracked upon the plane/ecliptic of it's actual motion to show a steady rate of 15° per hour. Jocelyn DID point out a way to do this, and the unique sundial she presented supported this assertion. I'm curious if anyone has personally done the experiment Jocelyn suggested with the sticks, or if we can find someone who has compiled said experiment before.

BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?
Flat earth has the benefit of slant angles from a very close sun. I never got a round earth answer to explain why 15 degrees isn't observed contrary to theory.
I believe the above bit should cover this, but wanted to be clear. Measuring along the plane perpendicular to the horizon will *not* show 15° of movement per hour. You must be measuring along the plane of the suns motion. Which so far the only thing presented that does so, is Jocelyn's unique sundial earlier in the thread, that does in fact have evenly spaced hour markings as one would expect.

I am running observations today. Preliminary conclusions:

1. The JocelynSachs experiment is not easy to run with crummy equipment. I propose instead a clipboard or notebook with markings on paper. I am running both today, but the JocelynSachs experiment has proved pretty much useless. Who knew? Paper and pen, on the other hand, are very simple. (I do appreciate the superiority of the JS experiment since the sun's path is not apparently planar. But I don't have an armillary sundial handy. And measuring the angle between sticks proves too difficult for me. I am a poor mechanic or technician?)
2. Winter solstice is not a great time to run observations.
3. My house is not a great time to run observations.
4. We need to narrow our hypothesis to the following: If the sun apparently orbits the earth, then the sun cannot zoom past at noon. Therefore if the sun traverses more than 15 degrees per hour at noon, the sun does not apparently orbit the earth. Conversely, for the FES sun animation to work, the sun must zoom past me at noon (making up for lost time at the horizons). Therefore if the sun only traverses 15 degrees per hour at noon, the FES sun animation is not correct and the sun does not glide above the earth and the earth is not flat.



BT seems to be more of a troll (perpetually evading agreement) than a bona fide conversant (getting to yes), so a more preliminary hypothesis might more appropriately be:

If BT agrees that London is outside in the USA, he may not be a troll. If he disagrees or refuses to answer straight, he is a troll.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 20, 2017, 04:21:46 PM »
BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?
Flat earth has the benefit of slant angles from a very close sun. I never got a round earth answer to explain why 15 degrees isn't observed contrary to theory.

Can you just answer the question? Do you agree with the following (you seem to agree, but you are also hedging)?

1. Sun must apparently advance constantly at 15 degrees per hour everywhere and always on a Round Earth.
2. Sun cannot apparently advance constantly at 15 degrees per hour everywhere and always on a Flat Earth.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 20, 2017, 04:09:58 PM »
BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What makes the Earth so special?
« on: December 20, 2017, 04:06:28 PM »
So the Earth is flat. But almost every other natural celestial body is spherical. What makes the Earth the only unique one?

FE flippant answer: Why shouldn't it be unique? Read Earth is Not a Globe.

Welcome to our world!

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: December 20, 2017, 03:57:45 PM »
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 20, 2017, 03:15:32 PM »
Well it turns out flat sundials work too. What we have here is round earther's trying to cheat a win so as they can maintain their normalisation bias. Basically more of the blue pill.

I will use a flat "sundial" today at my house and run the JocelynSachs experiment. Will you?


13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 20, 2017, 05:52:53 AM »
If on  around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.



Nope.

That isn't aligned with the polar axis, is it? That is aligned perpendicular to the polar axis. If that was a dish at that angle and not a curve, the sun would be under the dial. That is why your example is called an equatorial dial. The examples we were discussing are horizontal dials and they are aligned with the horizon. Polar dials tend to be bars on rectangular plates.

BT and everybody else, maybe we should agree to talk around a universal sundial with a correct orientation. Talking around incorrect sundials is pointless. A universal sundial is a globe with its pole pointed at the celestial pole. It isn't aligned with the earth's axis. See this image again:


14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 20, 2017, 05:47:13 AM »
BT you got a point!

BT has no point by any stretch, and I cannot understand how you are so easily taken in by him unless it is the sheer strength of his bluster, of which there is no short supply.

In the above he has done a full circle, defended the Round Earth position, and cried victory. It is just that nonsensical and absurd.  See below:

On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe.
...which is contrary to the observed steady 15 degrees per hour, as we keep reminding you.

The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.

Exactly! Glad to have you see the light!

Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.

Exactly! As observed for thousands of years. Maybe you really do understand!

I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.

Sure. If the sun did not really apparently march across the sky at 15 degrees per hour, we would be in doubt. But since it does, your sun animation cannot work.

At least it appears we all agree on one thing: FE and RE stand or fall on whether the sun marches at 15 degrees per hour. Maybe we should proceed to agree on an experiment. I like the JocelynSachs experiment.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 18, 2017, 09:15:05 PM »
No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.

It's not hard, but you are still missing that the sun does not rise vertically. It often and in many places traverses the 6 twilight degrees on a slant that comprises more than 6 degrees of its own path. How do you presume to school us about something that seems to be so hard for you to grasp?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 18, 2017, 09:13:28 PM »
You are expecting 15 degrees per hour and you aren't getting it.

That's where you are wrong and thousands of years of sundials disagree with you. Give us a clear and repeatable experiment to run at our houses to falsify our assertion or yours.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 18, 2017, 09:09:34 PM »
  • Sunrise is when the sun comes up.
  • Civil dawn twilight is 6 degrees earlier.
A. Please provide a reference for this assertion.

B. Please clarify whether you mean that i) 6 degrees below the horizon is civil dawn twilight or that ii) 6 degrees  of rotation before dawn is civil dawn twilight.

If i), I point out that depending on the sun's apparent path for the day and location, the 6 degrees below the horizon may comprise many more degrees of the sun's path.

If ii), I dispute your assertion.

Anyway, once the sun rises, it traverses 15 degrees every hour, and the length of the day is directly proportional to the number of degrees between sunrise and sunset on that day at that location.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 18, 2017, 07:30:39 PM »
The wind doesn't effect the sun. This is a stupid analogy.

It is not objectively a stupid analogy. And since you know it's an analogy, you know it's immaterial that "the wind doesn't affect the sun". The fact that you don't like what douglips is saying doesn't make him wrong. His analogy was a gracious attempt to help you understand the problem. If in fact you understand the problem very well and need no help, simply demonstrate your understanding a little better.

You are willfully ignoring the fact that the sun is not travelling a uniform 15 degrees per hour through the sky as we observe it.

We are not ignoring the fact that we have no idea what the sun is really doing. We are asserting that the sun appears to orbit the earth at 15 degrees per hour as observed since the beginning of recorded observations. This is not in dispute. Your next-door neighbors can corroborate it. This is not a NASA trick. Take the time to make your own sundial and record your observations.

And that is evidenced by looking at 6 degree intervals and seeing they are not the same time frame apart.

Sorry. This is not likely to be true. But I need a bit more clarity about your exact assertion. If you want, I will be happy to make any observations about this you suggest. I am self-employed and available at all hours of the day and night to record sun/moon/star angles at my house. Just give me precise instructions so I can repeat your observations.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 18, 2017, 07:22:08 PM »
Lets consider twilight times. I'll do this in baby steps because you are all acting like babies.

BT, I don't really like to do this. I do not doubt that you are a mature person with great talents. And I am grateful that you are willing to participate. It's better than dead silence, I suppose. But there is a serious problem with your contributions to this conversation. You are saying a lot of embarrassing things. Before continuing to contribute in discussions with uncommonly clear thinkers like JocelynSachs, douglips, and CuriousSquirrel, please take honest self-inventory of your ability to understand what they are saying and to talk on their level.

  • Please be honest about your ability to do math
  • Please be honest about your ability to do physics
  • Please be honest about your willingess and ability make and record rigorous observations

It's not a good sign that you do not grasp the importance of the difference between the sun appearing to orbit the earth and the sun being asserted to glide above the earth. And it's not a good sign that you are not able to graciously admit your math mistake. If you had admitted it and conceded the point, we would be more inclined to listen to you. A bit of humility would go a long way.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial
« on: December 18, 2017, 06:57:30 PM »
It takes 15 times as long to go from 80° to 70° as it does from 20° to 10°. But we know the sun moves at the same angular velocity for all observers every day. This is an impossibility if it has a steady linear velocity, as the example with the car shows.
Actually, I think JocelynSachs dropped a decimal point. I get 29.2 seconds and 18.7 seconds, with the 80 to 70 degree traversal taking 156% as long as the 20 to 10 degree traversal.

The 85 to 75 degree traversal takes 77 seconds. The 5 left to 5 right traversal takes 8.7 seconds. The first is 9 times as long as the second. If Tom Bishop can wave away the lowest 10 or 15 degrees, it helps a lot.

But the case for the Sun animation is even worse, because at equinox, as animated, the sunset sun from my house in Mesa, Arizona is traveling mostly past, not away from me.

album upload

It's at equinox


Arizona sunset 1


Arizona sunset 2


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >