9041

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Calculating the center of the earth by using just a compass

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:46:42 AM »

Tom Bishop claims: "In the entire Arctic and Antarctic circle the field lines are vertical and a normal compass is useless.",
but as you can see from above, the South Magnetic Pole is not even within the Antarctic Circle and Antarctic workers actually do use appropriately weighted magnetic compasses for navigation within most parts or Antarctica!

I believe I said normal compass.

9042

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:31:54 AM »

Can you explain why teaching children is bad?

It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?

What is a "high salary"?

That question is location specific.

9043

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:25:08 AM »

You don't really see the massive differences do you?

When Venus and Mercury appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are between the earth and the sun and their phase appears like a crescent moon (or even completely hidden in the glare of the sun).
When ALL the other planets appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are at their highest in the sky at around midnight (furthest from the sun) and they appear completely full.

This is incorrect. Mars has phases, just not the full range of phases like the planets closer to the sun. Mars has a bigger orbital diameter, and therefore our view of its orbit is more limited. We will not see as many phases as the planets nearest the sun.

https://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/Sect19_10.html

From a 10 inch telescope:

9044

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 01:33:22 AM »

Why do they have to transit? It makes sense that only the closest planets would transit. Obviously Pluto or Uranus aren't going to get in the way of you and the sun.

You completely ignore the other parts of the earlier posts!

Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. Why is it so?
When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).

ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT).

In other words there is a very big difference in the behaviour of Mercury and Venus from all the other planets that cannot simply be put down to distance from the sun.

Also you claim that Venus and Mercury are closer to the sun than the other planets. Would you please show some evidence for this. I have never seen any evidence for any calculations for these for the flat earth model.

Firstly, we don't see all of the sky over the earth. Much of it is lost to the perspective that causes the sun and stars to set (or perhaps the EA if one subscribes to that). We only see a limited portion of the sky at any one time.

In order to see the phases of the planets, the planet needs to be seen from all positions as it circles the sun. Mercury and Venus are close enough that their small circuits are viewable from many positions.

If the orbit of a distant planet is really big, you are not going to be able to see it in all positions of its orbit around the sun, only when it is over you when it is night and opposite from the sun. Hence, no or limited phases (as in the case of mars).

9045

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 01:21:15 AM »

Can you explain why teaching children is bad?

It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?

9046

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 01:08:06 AM »

So I was right in assuming the wiki meant only Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun, unless the other planets orbit outside the habitable plane of Earth.  If that is the case what observations led to the conclusion that all of the planets are orbiting the sun and that they are not moving for the same reason as the stars?

Why do these other planets have orbits that include making a loop and things like Venus, Mercury, and all the observable moons in our system orbit as we are told they do in the RE model.

They don't necessarily need to be outside of the habitable plane, they just need to be far away from the sun that they would never be in a position to get between the distance between you and the sun when it sets.

9047

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teachers deserve low pay

« on: May 02, 2016, 12:36:25 AM »

all they could do in life after their profound accomplishment was repeat what was told to them to children.

I'm not sure you're aware, but most professors are researchers first and foremost, and educators second. I would recommend familiarising yourself with academia before passing judgement on it. Avoiding elementary errors like that will make you look less silly, and you may even find it will increase the persuasive power of your arguments (albeit at the consequence of their content changing).

Professors take jobs at universities primarily to teach, not do research. The University forces them to do research for their own profit, and emphasizes that role as it can be very profitable for the institution, but that is besides the point. No one goes into professorship because of the research.

See http://www.nea.org/home/33067.htm

Full-time, tenured faculty must serve on academic committees and, at most four-year colleges and universities, conduct research as well. In spite of these requirements, faculty responding to surveys overwhelmingly report that teaching is their favorite responsibility and that they do more teaching than anything else. According to a government survey, even faculty at research universities spend considerably more time teaching than conducting research.

Professors don't want their careers to live or die depending on how well they do their research. They don't want to do the art of bringing new things into the world. They just want the easy job of repeating the same things over and over to endless classes of students. If they wanted to create new and wonderful things for the world they would have gone to work for a research lab or a tech startup, or they would have created one of their own.

They are afraid of failure, and would much prefer the comfort and security of an easy position of repeating themselves to children.

9048

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:54:13 PM »

Tom at what distance does math no longer work?  1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 or further?

Just your estimate where math fails to be able to give good estimates or right answers?

I can use that math to estimate ranges when I sail and had accurate results.

I used it recently to determine how much fuel a rounded tank on my boat could hold and the answer I got was verified to be correct when I put fuel in it.

I used it for celestial navigation and determined my position accurately with noon and star sightings.

Throughout my life I have used it in my career and personal life and consistently had it verified since it gave me the right answers that were verified correct when applied to projects, the amount of material needed, how much liquid something could hold, etc.

So when does math no longer work?  I ask because you seem assured you are right and must know at what distances it is no longer accurate.  My experience is that it does return the right answers. An experience I highly doubt that the majority of people would say the opposite.

Did you have evidence of being correct or is the only evidence you offer is if the Greeks were right you are wrong about the shape of the Earth?

It certainly does not work at the vanishing point of railroad tracks, as the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch. The observation is evidence that the world model as they described it is wrong.

It certainly does work with the railway tracks. They do not touch, they only appear to touch. How many times do we have to say the same thing?

PROOF:
Imagine the lines in question are railway tracks. They would appear to touch in about 3 miles (at a guess), but quite importantly they clearly do not touch, or that TGV flying past us at 200 mph is going to be in BIG BIG BIG TROUBLE in a bit under one minute! 

Go and have a look here if want to see what might happen Tgv crash, not the same cause.

Yes, I know I posted it before, but sometimes reality takes while to sink in.

Clearly railway tracks DO NOT ACTUALLY MEET, THEY ONLY APPEAR to MEET!

As I posted earlier in many cases we can test whether lines meet, by simply travelling to where they appear to meet.

Of course in some cases we may not be certain that the "lines" are truly parallel. That is no reflection on the geometry.

I'm afraid you must live in a different world to the rest of us, one quite divorced from reality!

If one looks at the scene, they do touch. It's a factual statement. "Appear" is implied.

According to the mathematical model of the Ancient Greeks, they should never touch.

According to the mathematical model of the Ancient Greeks, they should never touch.

And they never do touch - as I believe I quite convincingly proved with the railway tracks!

YOU claim: "If one looks at the scene, they do touch. It's a factual statement. "Appear" is implied."
And YOU say the "Appear" is implied. But the Greeks did not ever say "they do touch".

In fact what Euclid did say in his Fifth Postulate was:

If the sum of the interior angles α and β is less than 180°,
the two straight lines, produced indefinitely, meet on that side.

What Euclid states is that lines which are not parallel do converge. He does not even say that parallel do not converge.

Now I am no expert on Greek geometry (and of course we do not simply "rely on Greek geometry" anyway!), so maybe you can show where they even say that parallel lines "appear to touch" somewhere!

Can't you ever see the difference between what appears to be true and what is actually true?

If the railway tracks actually did meet we would have a horrendous smash. We do not have a smash (hopefully!) so the railway tracks do not meet at their "vanishing point".

Still I guess there is not point discussing this further. For some people waords have well defined meanings, for others:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

PS Never, ever change your mind and accept the fact that the earth is really a Globe. We just could not take your logic on our side!

Well, I don't believe the sun is actually touching the earth. Obviously I'm saying that they apparently touch when I say that they touch in the parallel line example. Can't you just move on, or do I need to repeat myself another 10 times?

9049

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: May 01, 2016, 10:04:02 PM »

The Greek model does not say they actually touch.  That is why I asked you to show us where it says they actually touch.  The important part is appearing to touch and actually touching.

If one looks at the scene, they do touch. It's a factual statement. "Appear" is implied.

According to the mathematical model of the Ancient Greeks, they should never touch.

9050

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: May 01, 2016, 07:22:42 PM »

Math is a purely logical construction; it concerns what can be deduced from an initial set of propositions. So the only way to refute a mathematical conclusion (i.e., a statement that proposition P can be deduced logically from the initial premises A, B, C,…) is to show a logical error in the proof.

An error in the proof is that parallel lines seem to converge in contradiction of theory.

In the Elements, Euclid defined parallel lines as lines in the same plane that never meet no matter how far they are extended in either direction. So if two lines meet, by definition they are not parallel in Euclid’s sense. Saying “these two parallel lines actually touch, therefore Euclid was wrong,” is like saying “this triangle has four sides, therefore Euclid was wrong about triangles.”

Elucid was wrong about a lot of things. Look up Zeno's Paradox. The Greek model of the universe is flimsy.

Example: You look at straight railroad tracks extending miles into the distance on a flat plain. You observe that what your brain tells you are rail lines in your field of vision meet at the horizon, and conclude that Euclid’s world view is wrong. No, you’ve just misapplied his reasoning. He never said that parallel lines will never appear to meet in your field of vision, no matter how far away they are. Now you look at the lines through a telescope, and the lines you see don’t meet any more. Hmm.

So what you seem be saying is that if lines in your field of vision actually meet as interpreted by your brain, then the lines out there, miles away, actually do meet. But that doesn’t explain why they don’t meet any more when viewed through a telescope. Nor is it consistent with our everyday observation that what looks like an ellipse turns out to be a circle when viewed from a different angle.

If the Greek models are corrupted by illusions at long distances then we must admit that there are illusions present in the subject matter and that the unsatisfactory Greek models cannot be used as a disproof of what a Flat Earth sun might or might not do.

9051

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: May 01, 2016, 07:14:32 PM »

So Tom thinks the math is wrong since if we look at something like railroad tracks and have enough viewing distance they appear to touch.

The math tells us they do not actually touch and a very simple observation will confirm this.  Just watch a train travel down those tracks.  Unless the train shrinks as it gets further away.

Tom why not show us using this faulty math where it says two parallel lines actually touch and not appear to touch do to perspective?

If one looks at the scene, they do touch. It's a factual statement. "Appear" is implied.

According to the mathematical model of the Ancient Greeks, they should never touch.

9052

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Calculating the center of the earth by using just a compass

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:10:44 AM »

I don't think the compass always shows North on the horizontal. I believe the magnetic field lines are vertical when you get closer to the poles due to the configuration of the magnetic field lines on a Flat Earth.

At the latitude of Seattle Washington a normal compass is already scraping the bottom of its tray. In the entire Arctic and Antarctic circle the field lines are vertical and a normal compass is useless. See: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html

9053

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 01, 2016, 10:49:04 AM »

How are they "secretly running the entirety of civilization"?

Look at Setec's post again. He claims a conspiracy across all world governments (and Youtubers).

You mean this? "But back to NASA and the rest of the space agencies (that we commoners are meant to believe are different entities, just as we are meant to believe our governments are controlled by different entities... it's all part of maintaining a divide-and-conquer Hegelian dialectic) - they reveal themselves as frauds in their hoaxy astronaut videos all the time."

I don't see an issue with that statmente. Check out the Chinese space walk:

9054

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 01, 2016, 10:41:40 AM »

You forgot to mention at least Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as is circles above us.

The wiki says says the planets orbit the sun.  I am not sure if that includes all the planets.

Seeing how we never see any other planets pass in front of the sun I am thinking the wiki is talking about just those two.

No-one seems to be able to offer any explanation as why only Mercury and Venus transit the sun.
Not only that but Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon.

Those are observable facts, even Captain James Cook knew about the transits of Venus!

Why would all of the planets transit the sun? Mercury and Venus are the closest ones to it.

Why would they never transit? And you forgot about, why are Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon?
The other planets do have slight phase changes, only gibbous and full, while Mercury and Venus show the full range of phases. There are other quite significant differences, but the crucial point is what is so completely different about Mercury and Venus.

No problem with the Globe, it's simply that Mercury and Venus are closer to the Sun that the Earth and other planets.

Why do they have to transit? It makes sense that only the closest planets would transit. Obviously Pluto or Uranus aren't going to get in the way of you and the sun.

9055

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 01, 2016, 08:38:16 AM »

The military does a very good job of keeping plans to their advanced weaponry off the internet, for example. An organization able to keep a secret is not unheard of.

Sure, but the claim wasn't that the secret couldn't be kept. The claim was that the amount of foresight and cooperation required would be super-human. Keeping some technical designs secret for a limited time (until the method becomes common knowledge) is not the same as secretly running the entirety of civilisation.

How are they "secretly running the entirety of civilization"?

9056

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: May 01, 2016, 08:01:10 AM »

Tom at what distance does math no longer work?  1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 or further?

Just your estimate where math fails to be able to give good estimates or right answers?

I can use that math to estimate ranges when I sail and had accurate results.

I used it recently to determine how much fuel a rounded tank on my boat could hold and the answer I got was verified to be correct when I put fuel in it.

I used it for celestial navigation and determined my position accurately with noon and star sightings.

Throughout my life I have used it in my career and personal life and consistently had it verified since it gave me the right answers that were verified correct when applied to projects, the amount of material needed, how much liquid something could hold, etc.

So when does math no longer work?  I ask because you seem assured you are right and must know at what distances it is no longer accurate.  My experience is that it does return the right answers. An experience I highly doubt that the majority of people would say the opposite.

Did you have evidence of being correct or is the only evidence you offer is if the Greeks were right you are wrong about the shape of the Earth?

It certainly does not work at the vanishing point of railroad tracks, as the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch. The observation is evidence that the world model as they described it is wrong.

It certainly does work with the railway tracks. They do not touch, they only appear to touch. How many times do we have to say the same thing?

PROOF:
Imagine the lines in question are railway tracks. They would appear to touch in about 3 miles (at a guess), but quite importantly they clearly do not touch, or that TGV flying past us at 200 mph is going to be in BIG BIG BIG TROUBLE in a bit under one minute! 

Go and have a look here if want to see what might happen Tgv crash, not the same cause.

Yes, I know I posted it before, but sometimes reality takes while to sink in.

Clearly railway tracks DO NOT ACTUALLY MEET, THEY ONLY APPEAR to MEET!

As I posted earlier in many cases we can test whether lines meet, by simply travelling to where they appear to meet.

Of course in some cases we may not be certain that the "lines" are truly parallel. That is no reflection on the geometry.

I'm afraid you must live in a different world to the rest of us, one quite divorced from reality!

If one looks at the scene, they do touch. It's a factual statement. "Appear" is implied.

According to the mathematical model of the Ancient Greeks, they should never touch.

9057

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 01, 2016, 07:58:39 AM »

So what? What is the relevance?

The military does a very good job of keeping plans to their advanced weaponry off the internet, for example. An organization able to keep a secret is not unheard of.

9058

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 01, 2016, 07:55:34 AM »

You forgot to mention at least Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as is circles above us.

The wiki says says the planets orbit the sun.  I am not sure if that includes all the planets.

Seeing how we never see any other planets pass in front of the sun I am thinking the wiki is talking about just those two.

No-one seems to be able to offer any explanation as why only Mercury and Venus transit the sun.
Not only that but Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon.

Those are observable facts, even Captain James Cook knew about the transits of Venus!

Why would all of the planets transit the sun? Mercury and Venus are the closest ones to it.

9059

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Formation of metals in flat earth

« on: May 01, 2016, 07:51:58 AM »

Some believe that precious metals such as gold and platinum come from meteors, and are not naturally formed.

9060

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 01, 2016, 07:42:50 AM »

Because I have certainly not seen any indications that humans can cooperate on such a scale for a long timeframe without internal fighting.

What makes you think you would be privy to their infighting?

I think the implication is that infighting would result in the conspirators no longer cooperating, and from there to outright conflict among them, in which case the whole conspiracy thing would fall apart.  And THAT, we would see.  If suddenly The Conspiracy was no longer acting in unison to deceive us all about the shape of the world.

A lot of the technologies are subject to military classification. And the military does a very good job of keeping military secrets, secret. You would have a hard time finding classified military secrets online.