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 - Kangaroony

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: January 31, 2022, 01:04:17 PM »
...In fact a fully functional flat earth model has actually already been developed, and it has been proven that it's indistinguishable from the globe model.

No it hasn't.  It'd be an impossibility simply because there can be no
such thing.  We know the earth is an oblate spheroid.  End of story.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: January 31, 2022, 12:56:56 PM »
Distances in a non-orthonormal basis may not be measured with an orthogonal ruler.
You need a flat-earth-ruler to measure on a flat-earth map.

In maths: sqrt(xx+yy+zz) is not the correct formula. Apply that to Australia and you'll get gibberish.
You need to use a meaningful distance metric for the map/model you're using.
For the AE map, the conventional distance formula for coordinates expressed as (lat, long) does work as lat/long are preserved by the projection

You're a bit early with this.  There's still 8 weeks to go before 1st April.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 16, 2022, 08:52:57 PM »
It’s not irrelevant what Trump says because a large number of people may act on his words.

That's true, but I guess the definition of what a "large number" of people means.  The US has an
eligible voting population of around 240 million individuals, so even if we hypothesised that 10 million
of those voters followed him—absolutely—like a messiah, it wouldn't make all that much difference
to the outcome of a presidential election; certainly not enough to switch that outcome. 

Bear in mind too that only 66% of US eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2020 election, mainly I'd guess
because nobody seriously believed an arrogant, buffoonish real estate salesman and game show host
could become the POTUS in any real world.   2024 will be vastly different as far as voter turnout goes,
as they've now realised it's serious business, and how close Trump came to a second term has woken
them up.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 16, 2022, 08:20:59 PM »
...He's no danger to the public. But their entire reason for deporting him is the 'danger' he poses. That makes Australia the liars.

Not so at all.  Djokovic has now been, rightly, deported.  And despite your claim, as an unvaccinated
individual, he was a danger to others.  If he'd simply had the vaccination, like other foreign players
competing in the Australian Open, then none of this debacle would've occurred.  Likewise, if he hadn't
deliberately lied on his visa application, then it wouldn't have occurred either.  His deportation was solely
Djokevic's own fault, coupled with his stubborn arrogance and disdain for Australian laws.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 16, 2022, 07:54:56 PM »
It's ultimately immaterial what a failed former US president has to say about COVID vaccines,
particularly as he had zero medical qualifications in order to do so, and initially thought—just
like a miracle!—the virus would simply disappear of its own accord.  Estimates of course vary,
but some clinicians have said that Trump's delays and dismissals of the virus's effects were
responsible for upwards of 100,000 avoidable COVID deaths.

The fact that his father Fred paid for Donald's B.S., Economics at Wharton, plus the fact that he
was a draft dodger should've sounded alarm bells from day one of his presidential candidacy.
Trump is an arrogant coward, and an uneducated buffoon, who appeals solely to the gun-toting,
redneck cowboys with double-digit IQs.

If he truly believes he can make a successful run for the presidency in 2024, then I can only presume
he's suffering from early onset dementia. 

Or, just maybe, the 3 Big Macs and fries every day will see him off LOL.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: January 15, 2022, 04:22:27 PM »
I'd argue this isn't really in the public interest to charge Andrew. He isn't predating on actual children, and again trafficking suggests someone is taken against their will... and she just looks like every other thirsty Instagram girl to me...

Ahhh... the old "victim blaming" defence.  Tsk, tsk.

It's all very well to say that Virginia Giuffre was a willing participant, and it's correct to say that the
age of consent is 16 years, but... in the case of a female, the male partner must be no more than
two years older, IE 18 years of age.  At the time of Andrew's sexual penetration of Giuffre he was
23 years older—in fact old enough to be her father!  This alone indicates a sexually deviant individual
who took advantage of an uncultured young girl's naivety, and one who had stars in her eyes.

Andrew hasn't been "charged" with any crime, nor will he be.  This will be purely a civil court case.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: January 15, 2022, 03:56:25 PM »
Even Hillary Clinton thinks Biden is running a poor White House:

LOL... no, Clinton never mentioned Biden specifically.  The "Slams Biden" part of The Gateway Pundit's
headline was never in the original FOX news report;  it was added maliciously by the ultra-right wing
Trump-supporting TGP.

Clinton said "Look, I’m all about having vigorous debate. I think it’s good, and it gives people a chance to
be part of the process,” she added. “But, at the end of the day it means nothing IF we don’t have
a Congress that will get things done, and we don’t have a White House that we can count on to be sane
and sober and stable and productive".

And TGP is most definitely not a reliable source.  You've been fooled Tom.    Sorry.

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website. The website is known for publishing
falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.   Twitter permanently suspended its account on 6 February 2021,
for repeatedly publishing misinformation about the 2020 US presidential election. In September 2021, Google
demonetised the site for publishing misinformation.

It's been described by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology as one of the websites that "primarily propagate
fake news", by Newsweek as a fake news website, and by CNN as a website "prone to peddling conspiracy theories"

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: January 15, 2022, 02:57:35 PM »
There is no "other side" of course.

If I start travelling due north on the RE earth's prime meridian, say in London, and keep going,
I'll obviously end up back at my starting point in London.  This is impossible on the flat earth
model, as I'd simply eventually hit—or fly over—the perimeter ice wall.  And never get back to
London!  In fact, I'd have to do a U-turn at some stage if I wanted to return to my starting point.

This is a question that FET cannot answer.  Nor can it answer why it is that we can't see the sun all day
as it rotates in its circular orbit above the flat plane of the earth.  Or why I can see it in Melbourne on the
southeast coast of Australia, but my friend in Perth on the west coast only 2,700km (1,677 miles) distant
can't—considering that according to FET, the sun is only 3,000 miles (4,800km) from the earth's surface.

The FET geometry doesn't make any sense—as to work, it would erroneously rely on the sun purportedly
acting like a spotlight on the earth's surface.

And, incidentally, one cannot see the Southern Cross constellation from Canada.   Again, FET can't explain this.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 15, 2022, 02:23:34 PM »
Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead. Your assertion that the Sun maintains its output or intensity is fundamentally incorrect.

Not so.  The energy output remains exactly the same at every part of the day (and night).  It's done
so for billions of years, and in all likelihood will effectively do so for billions more.  To claim that
the output of the sun varies on a periodic basis is erroneous.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
On Sunlight Intensity:

"Natural sunlight intensity starts at zero just before dawn, reaches a peak at noon and then fades back to zero at dusk. As we have shown, that “intensity curve” can be estimated by a triangle."

This is referring to the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface at a given time, and not any
variation in the output of the sun's energy.  And that amount varies—naturally—from sunrise to noon
to sunset.  You've completely misinterpreted that report and graph from the gardening site Tom.  Sorry.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star.

Of course two stars of the same physical size will appear to be larger or smaller than the other dependent
on their distance from the observer.  This is not an "assumption" but an optical and/or geometric fact.

...Generally winds play a bigger factor as you head south into thicker atmospheres.

The atmosphere is not particularly "thicker" in the southern hemisphere.  The density of the
atmosphere changes with altitude, not location.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the FE sun
« on: January 11, 2022, 10:23:25 AM »
My Kitchen Table is Flat.  If I shine a light anywhere above the surface, it illuminates the entire surface.  If I argue that one edge of the table is closer to a thick atmosphere that diffuses light, how would it completely block the light on one side and not the other?  Might be dimmer, but not completely blocked.

Trying to understand this.

Flat earth theory requires that the sun acts similarly to a spotlight, shining on a well-defined
circular area on the earth's surface, with a narrow corona, or light-spill.    In the "standard"
spherical earth model of course, the sun's light radiates from the full 360º of its surface, rather
than as the focussed light from, say, an LED torch with a reflector and/or lens.

Also, there is no such thing as a "thick" atmosphere.  The atmosphere of course gets thinner
(less dense) with increasing altitude above the earth's surface—less gas molecules per cubic metre.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 11, 2022, 09:45:16 AM »
There is no easily seen Southern Star. To find North-South in the South celestial navigation uses various constellations that have stars in them that tend to be aligned North-South. There are also other methods to determine latitude by the stars without needing a Southern Star.

Of course there's a "Southern Star"  —visible from the entire southern hemisphere, and even from
some extremely southerly land masses within the northern hemisphere.  It's within a constellation
know as the "Crux" or cross.  Its brightest multiple star system is Acrux, which looks like a single
bright star.

I can walk out of my house now, and find it (and determine north) in about 5 seconds.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: January 11, 2022, 08:52:41 AM »
...Generally, weather presenters are paid actors with only the most rudimentary of training. There is no requirement for them to hold any qualification in meteorology, and the pay is too low to be attractive to those overqualified.

This is a very broad generalisation Pete.  I can list a few Australian TV weather presenters
who're actual meteorologists straight off the top of my head:

Dave Brown,  Jane Bunn,  Tony Auden,  Rob Gell,  Nate Byrne.

And of course the weather presenters are "paid".  Why wouldn't they be?    Can you please
list a few US weather presenters who are merely actors, with no meteorological training?
You also seen to be implying that qualified meteorological individuals who choose to present
the TV weather are "overqualified" whilst also implying they should be so qualified. 

Where exactly do you stand on this?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 02, 2022, 07:59:41 PM »
What IS certain and a complete dealbreaker for the mainstream paradigm (globe earth, moving earth) is NASA being caught in lies hundreds of times.

Personally, I've never seen any convincing evidence that NASA has been caught lying about its
findings "hundreds" of times.  As there are purportedly so many lies, could you list half a dozen
that you think proves the claim?

Quote from: CathInfo
And being able to see WAY TO FAR for a globe earth to be our reality.

I'm not sure I understand this;  can you please clarify it?

Quote from: CathInfo
Also, water seeks its own level. Water doesn't ever bulge anywhere, on a macro OR micro scale. It is always flat and level.

Not so, as is easily observed in a test tube of water.  Nowhere in these two tubes is the
surface of the water "flat".

Quote from: CathInfo
Spinning balls tend to SHAKE OFF water, not hold it fast.

That's simply because the centrifugal forces on the molecules of water are greater then the
gravitational attraction from the ball, which is minuscule—to effectively non-existent.

Quote from: CathInfo
And how can "gravity" keep a death grip on millions of tons of water on the bottom of the globe, yet it will let a helium balloon "go", no problem.

The force of gravity that attracts water molecules to the CoG of the Earth, is exactly what
prevents you from flying off into space.  And if you don't understand why a helium-filled balloon
rises, then maybe you should be reading some stuff on a few basic physics site. 
Hint:  a litre of air has a mass of around 1 gram, whilst a litre of helium has a mass of 0.1785g.

Quote from: CathInfo
Why does gravity SOMETIMES hold things fast like a death grip, and other times cause things
to orbit it? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.

Gravity does not hold you in a "death grip".  Can you not jump up off the ground?  Have you never
noticed birds easily resisting gravity?  Elevators in buildings resist gravity hundreds of time every day.
And satellites maintain their orbits by balancing two factors: their velocity (the speed it takes to travel
in a straight line) and the gravitational pull that Earth has on them.

Quote from: CathInfo
Those are some of the most convincing arguments for FE I can think of right now -- but there are others.

Sorry, but no.  None of those things are arguments supporting the flat earth theory.  Rather they're
arguments attempting to discredit round earth theory.  And they're not even good, science-based
arguments of yours; they're simply guesses based on the misinterpretation of what we see around us.

Quote from: stack
How would a telescope versus a camera with an equally powerful lens be different on the same EQ mount?

I've never seen a camera with an equally powerful lens as an astronomical telescope. Who knew that telescope manufacturers were unnecessarily making their telescopes so large if they could pack it down into a small package and get equal results, as indicated by someone's claim on an internet forum.

What does a telescope versus a camera and lens have to do with EQ mount functionality?

Nothing.  It's obvious that Tom has little understanding of the technicalities of astrophotography,
as he seems to think that only a massive telescope is capable of accurately tracking planets
and/or stars;  the fact that he's "never seen" something himself is a weak argument.    The fact
that he mentions "wide angle lenses" confirms this, as that sort of lens is not what's required.

A good suggestion for astrophotography would be the Canon EOS Ra, which is the first camera
modified specifically for astrophotography. The filter on the Ra's sensor has been specially modified
to transmit four times as much Ha (hydrogen alpha) light. This extended red sensitivity means
the Ra can capture the characteristic reddish color of nebulae, for example, and will reveal a larger
number of celestial objects for much richer night skies.  Mounted on a portable Star Tracker, this will
produce stunning images of, for example, nebulae.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: January 02, 2022, 06:07:09 PM »
Weather prediction has always been a scam, right up there with gravitational physics...

Personally, here in Australia, I've never once queried the weather sciences and/or both long
and short term forecasts as being any sort of deliberate "scam". 

In fact the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has shown over more than a century to be accurate
to around a 97% rate as far as daily maximum and minimum temperatures are concerned.  It's
also accurately predicted the recently past El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) period of the
eastern Pacific Ocean, which Australia borders. 

Currently, La Niña conditions continue in the Pacific. Climate models suggest this La Niña will persist
until the late southern hemisphere summer or early autumn 2022. La Niña events increase the chance
of above average rainfall across much of northern and eastern Australia during summer.  And if one
checks rainfall data for Australia's eastern seaboard, it'll be seen that rainfall figures have been, in
many locations, well above the long-term average, or in fact record falls.

—Tom, do you have any evidence that weather predictions are a deliberate scam, who would be perpetrating
them, and for what specific reasons?

...Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world. To sum it up, any object cannot have mass and not have volume. For example I weight 85kg. Am I overweight or normal for people living in the north? you would come to know that mass tells us nothing of my size so that's why mass should be discarded because it has no dimensions. If we however, replace it with density then we can get an appropriate picture of the natural object in 3 dimensions. Peace

Yes; mass does exist in the natural observable world.  If the mass of your body wasn't
observable, then I wouldn't see you as you walked past me on the street.  You have a body
mass of 85kg.  To not see you would require that you had a body mass of 0kg, which is of course
absurd—because you simply wouldn't exist.

Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, and measures the quantity of matter
regardless of both its location in the universe and the gravitational force applied to it. An object's
mass is constant in all circumstances—contrast this with its weight, a force that depends on gravity.

And you're also wrong about me not being able to comprehend your "size" as a human being.  And
BTW, size is not technically a defining scientific term;  you and I have massive sizes in comparison
to an ant for example, but the Earth is of a tiny size in comparison with the sun.  Size, per se, is only
an abstract, relative term.

If you take your argument any further then, you're simply straying into a game of semantics.

I'm thinking the mechanism that propels these air and space craft are high powered winds near the atmospheres edge or shell.

There are no "high powered" winds in space;  it's effectively a vacuum.  Satellites and the ISS are not
propulsed in the sense you mean.  Relative to the CoG of the planet, their velocity is close to constant. 

Quote from: MetaTronThe
One thing Airbus CX845 and the ISS have in common is that within a dome they both travel near the edge.  The ISS taking a higher and more narrow circular path and the airliner a lower and wider one.

Nope.  The service ceiling of the Airbus A350-1000 is 13,000m.  The ISS orbital altitude is 418,000m.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: December 25, 2021, 12:17:17 PM »
Google maps shows Australia as around 4,040 km east to west, and around 3,185 km north to south.
And which I can confirm by having driven all around the continent.

But... The standard monopole flat earth map commonly used by the modern Flat Earth Society indicates
Australia is around three times as wide E—W as it is N—S. 

So is Google maps wrong in its interpretation of geodetic positioning, or is FET wrong in its rendering?

I also note that signwriter Samuel Shenton's flat Earth map shows Australia as larger in area than the
North American land mass, which is obviously erroneous.  But then Shenton had no scientific qualifications
of any sort, nor was he a cartographer, so his rendering can easily be dismissed.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >