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 - Tumeni

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133  Next >
I think the world spins and the sun is stationary.  The reason the sun doesn't light up the whole world is because of the way the Earth tilts towards the sun and how the light bends around the atmosphere....  This creates areas of light and areas of dark on Earth.  That's why we can use time zones but it's generally 12pm when the sun is directy over a  location...

 Time zones I guess are important so everyone starts and ends a calendar day at the same time...  I think 12am in Greenwich UK is when a new day officially starts followed by the countries approaching 12am midnight ..

WHY do you "think" this ...?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 23, 2022, 11:30:38 PM »
Isn't it remotely possible that the estimated distances were miscalculated and relying on a round earth?

No. If that were the case, planes would routinely and consistently arrive early or late, rather than the odd few exhibiting an anomalous time.

... the natural tendancy for distant objects to appear lower to a viewer

... only if the observer is below said objects. If they are all of the same height, such as the oft-cited row of lamp posts, they would appear to rise in the observer's field of view, not appear lower.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 22, 2022, 10:49:42 AM »
There's a consistency to gravity pulling everything on Earth to a central point. Between the three main elements making up our planetary ecosystem, air, water, and soils/rocks, they all exhibit the same variations in density, equally, all over the planet.

Wherever you go, air pressure is always highest at sea level, and it progressively gets lower as you go higher.

Wherever you go, water pressure in seas, oceans and lakes is lowest at the surface, and gets higher the deeper you go.

Wherever you go, there are generally soils, sands and loose aggregrates at the surface, with denser soils and rocks as you dig down and go lower.

Why would this be universally so, if the world were flat? What possible explanation could there be for a consistent downward force in (say) Australia, and the UK, if they were both on a flat plane? Surely you would need a different focal point for the force in each location, otherwise the force would not act vertically.


Wherever you go, acceleration due to gravity is found to be consistent with everywhere else on the planet. Which surely is more consistent with all gravity drawing everything to one point, as opposed to folks in Australia being drawn to one, and those in the UK to another.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 06:25:44 PM »
Why does a helium balloon float? Where is gravity then?

The same place it is when a plane flies, when a bird or insect takes off, or the wind blows a leaf upwards.

The motive force of the plane's engines, allied with the lift provided by airflow over the wings, generates upward force sufficient to counteract gravity.

Same principle for the other two. The bird's wing action, or the air currents moving the leaf, provide sufficient force to counteract gravity

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 06:22:51 PM »
an illustration is not proof of anything.

Again, I say - we can post here only words, illustrations, and videos.

What forms of proof are you likely to accept?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 04:29:56 PM »
As science only uses gravity to explain things.

Oh, I think you'll find there's a lot more to "science" than gravity.

What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down?

Humankind has already been through this "what if" stage. Then a guy called Copernicus came along and stood the "what if" on its head. And guess what? Everything since then has tied in with Copernicus' version.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 21, 2022, 01:38:26 PM »
I note you haven't commented on Tumeni's point. If you're at a high vantage point and looking down at the top of a lower vessel then your line of sight has to continue on and intersect the sea. It has to, if the earth is flat. Why can you see the sky behind the top of the ship in that picture and not the sea? Why is there a horizon at all on a FE? It isn't visibility as you can see distant ships ....

Exactly. There are four ships/boats in the photo with the Jumbo Kinetic (that plus three others).

To the left, a container ship and some kind of fishing vessel beyond it. The JK to the right of centre, and, pretty much in the centre, a ship or boat on or near the horizon.

The original full-frame shot;

The area where the fourth craft is (along with the smaller craft beyond the container ship), both highlighted in red;

And a crop showing the fourth craft;

Again; I, the observer, was at 100m above sea level. The manufacturer's data sheet for the JK states it is 52m air draft (height above the waterline), so 52m above sea level. It is roughly half the height that I was observing from. There's no landfall beyond the JK until Norway, some 700km or so beyond, so why do I see clear sky beyond the tops of the cranes, if my sightline should lead directly to the water if the seas are flat?

It's simple geometry of right-angle triangles. Drop a vertical from the observation point, continue the presumed flat plane of the sea to meet that vertical below the observer, and we have a right-angle. Join observer to top of ship with a straight line, a descending hypotenuse, and that line MUST, if continued beyond the top of the ship, meet the sea, as described and illustrated above.

It's not lack of visibility. We can see wave crests beyond the JK, all the way to the horizon, and to the fourth ship on or near it. We can see way beyond the JK.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 01:19:10 PM »
Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.

... which depicts, represents, or illustrates, the textbook scientific explanation/description of our globe Earth and how gravity fits in with it.

Taking issue with the illustration BECAUSE it's an illustration, and not ... something else other than a 'cartoon', is not, in itself, a disproof of the science.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 09:25:30 AM »
Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.

Well, all that can be posted here is words, images, and videos. What are you looking for?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 21, 2022, 12:38:05 AM »
How rockets work ...  does have something to do with gravity.

Like what?

Rockets work whether you use them to lift something off the ground, vertically, or whether you use them to drive something along the ground.  Gravity has nowt to do with this.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 02:45:46 PM »
If Jets and Rockets are propelled as a reaction to moving the mass of fuel at a high velocity in one direction rather than on the exhaust fumes pushing against air, then there should be some information which could confirm the answer.

.... which will be found in one or more textbooks on the subject written in the last 70 years or so.

Library. Bookshop. Technical manual supplier.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 18, 2022, 09:47:41 PM »
Vacuums don't "pull". Vacuums cannot "do" anything to influence matter.

Let's indulge you on the "rockets push off air" line. Consider this; in order for the rocket to push off the air, wouldn't the air need to, generally speaking, stay in the vicinity of the rocket? Have you ever seen air do this? Have you ever seen a rocket launch where there has NOT been considerable movement of air, exhaust product, etc. AWAY from the rocket?

Also, consider this; exhaust product leaves the rocket, where it contacts air. How does this transfer back to the rocket in order to generate forward motion? The exhaust and the air are both detached from the rocket now, and the exhaust product is moving away from the rocket, and taking the air with it.

You can bleat about "nobody going into detail about how they work" all you like, but I'll wager that you haven't looked at any real textbooks or peer-reviewed papers on the topic, and I'll wager that you don't actually work in an industry involved in rocketry, and so wouldn't encounter anyone who knows this stuff on a day-to-day basis.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 18, 2022, 05:33:31 PM »
This sort of lends evidence to the idea that rockets work best in an atmosphere...Or they need an atmosphere.


Why not keep firing rockets in the middle of there trip to the moon if it gets them there sooner?

For a manned mission such as Apollo, you need to carry enough fuel in the first and second stages to get to the velocity where you can leave orbit. The third stage is used to leave Earth orbit, but ... the faster you go, the more fuel you need in order to stop at the other end of the journey. The only brakes you have are the fuelled engines, and lunar gravity. So there's a fine balancing act between all the stuff you need to carry for survival of the crew, the duration of the mission, and your fuel capacity.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum.
« on: November 18, 2022, 05:11:07 PM »
If you throw a bowling ball from a skateboard then you will move in the opposite direction.  Until of course the bowling ball drops and you lose speed because of ground resistance.

Whether the ball drops or not is immaterial, since you are now separated from it. All that determines whether you keep going or not is air resistance and wheel friction, along with slope of the ground.

I'm not sure rockets can propel a spaceship continually over time in a near vacuum... Maybe thats why they loose the rocket boosters once in orbit?

First stages or boosters are discarded after a few minutes simply because they run out of fuel. After that point, there is no value in carrying the weight of the stage or booster. In SpaceX's case, they bring them back down and re-use them. In the recent Artemis launch, the solid fuel boosters were discarded totally. Shuttle boosters were recovered in some instances, but not re-used, as far as I know

Most all spacecraft do not use rockets continuously. In Apollo, a 2 or 3 minute exit burn sent the craft toward the Moon, and it coasted the rest of the way, with nothing to slow it down. SpaceX runs the second stage for a few minutes in order to get the craft to its intended orbital height, then it too, coasts along.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 18, 2022, 05:02:47 PM »
I like Tumeni's argument a lot. It's a better one than mine. If you're at a high vantage point looking out to sea and looking down at a lower vessel then your line of sight from you to the top of the vessel must continue downwards to intersect the sea IF the sea is flat. It has to, that's just basic geometry. So that photo is impossible on a FE.

Thank You.

Here's another, taken from YouTube channel 'Flatsa'. You can see my original critique comments in the video below reflecting the same argument that I present here.

Observer height was 210m, and there are four objects/elements in play here; from left to right, there's the lighthouse on the Isle of May - 73m optical height; there's the ship on or near the horizon; height unknown, distance unknown, but we can certainly state it to be less than 210m in height, and in the video we see it pass in front of the third element, the Inch Cape Met Mast (you might need to watch the video below to see it). The large hill to the right is Berwick Law, on the mainland, but with a peak of 187m, still lower than the observation point. There's plenty of water beyond all of them. No landfall until Norway, some 700km+ away.

So, all of the sightlines from 210m down to the 73m lighthouse, the far smaller ship, the met mast, and Berwick Law, should meet the water. But they do not. We can work out the geometry of it all, and from that, we find that the sightline through the top of the lighthouse, for instance, should meet the water between the observation point and the met mast, IF the water is flat. But it does not. If it did, the met mast would be above the lighthouse in the observer's field of view.  All we see behind and beyond the lighthouse is clear sky. And the topmost point of the lighthouse is above the topmost point of the met mast. The seas CANNOT be flat.

This diagram shows the principle that applies to this observation, and to that of the Jumbo Kinetic that I posted earlier;



Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 18, 2022, 04:42:08 PM »
Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.

Rowbottom describes his flags at Bedford Level;

He indicates an upward sightline to the higher flag, and a level sightline across the tops of those of equal height. I've added the black flag, which is lower than those around it, and lower than the observer's eye level. The sightline to this must be a downward one. Upward to the higher flag, level to the others, downward to the black one.

Any instance of the observer above the object, looking out at the object on the water, given sufficient water, MUST have the observer seeing water behind and beyond the top of the object. If he sees clear sky, with water below the top of the object in his field of view, the water cannot be flat. 

So, with sufficient water, and no landfall beyond, the downward sightline from observer to lower object/flag MUST meet the water. It cannot miss it. Parallel lines never meet, non-parallel must meet.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 17, 2022, 06:07:39 PM »
It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

It's a still photo. Of course it's "brief"

Here's a crop centred on the ship under discussion. What swell?

I was at 100m elevation (height a below), with the ship of height a1 at distance b1 from me. If the sea is genuinely flat, then the surface of that, along with the vertical below my feet, yields a right angle below me; join the observation point to the top of the ship, forming a hypotenuse for a right-angle triangle and we must, by definition, have a line which descends toward the sea; since the ship is 52m, and I'm 48m above it.

That downward line must meet the sea, IF the sea is flat. Parallel lines never meet, but non-parallel lines must. The downward sightline is not parallel to the sea, so must meet it. With the observation height, ship height, and distance of ship all known, we can calculate, with school-level geometry, where the sightline should meet the water. But the sightline does not meet it. We see clear sky behind and beyond the top of the ship.

What are the "perspective issues"?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 17, 2022, 12:49:45 PM »
Suppose he's tacitly admitting he lost in 2020, then, by applying to serve for a second term from 2024.

If he'd won in 2020, that would have ushered in his second term, and he would now be applying illegally for a third.

At what point does his bid get denied on the basis that he cannot serve in public office AT ALL?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 17, 2022, 12:42:13 PM »
On any wide expanse of water, I can look down and see that the surface is flat. This is something I've observed many times. The most immediate and direct evidence points to a flat Earth. It shows no evidence of sphericity.

All I can suggest is, once again -

Find a vantage point to look out on the sea and note its height above sea level
Observe something out on the water which is of lower height, above its waterline or coastal line, than your observation position.
Let's say you're at 100m elevation, looking at a ship of 52m.
You must be looking downward at the topmost point of the ship.
You must be looking downward at any and every point on the water's surface.

If the water is truly flat, there can be no instance where you look downward at the topmost point of the ship and fail to see water behind and beyond it.

A descending line from 100 to 0 must pass through 52
A descending line from 100 to 52 must, if continued beyond the 52 point, reach 0. It cannot miss it.

If there is ANY instance where you see clear sky behind and beyond the ship which is lower than you, the sea CANNOT be flat.

100m observation point, 52m ship with twin yellow cranes at approx. 17km. Nothing but clear sky behind and beyond the topmost point. The sea cannot be flat.

Nothing to do with Tom's "sinking ship", no need to show ships "going over the horizon".

Proof found in near-field objects, well within clear viewing distance. Can show the same with observations of islands, lighthouses, other fixtures. Loads of examples.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133  Next >