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 >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 10:53:59 AM »
Two outspoken liberals on tfes.org were unable to maintain the same narrative.

Flat-earthers here and flat-earthers on YouTube are unable to maintain the same narrative. The ones on YouTube cannot maintain consistency between themselves.

Looks like Flat Earth has failed.

Good luck on trying to make "liberal" into an insult or perjorative.

2
... 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.

With the observer below the lamp tops, they appear to descend to his eye level;



With the observer above them, they appear to ascend to his eye level;




3
Technology & Information / Re: Speeding will be harder...
« on: December 02, 2022, 09:41:39 AM »
how would it know the speed limit?  Read speed signs?  Google map?

I recently drove a 2021 vehicle had camera(s), apparently reading roadside signs (which have a standardised format in the UK) and white-painted signs on the roadway. This system would fall apart if, for instance, New York State and New Jersey had different styles of roadside signs....

Additionally, but unconnected to that car, I have an app on my phone, Drivescore, which monitors the behaviour of my phone, and hence my driving, in terms of speeding, acceleration, braking, cornering etc. Those who score smoothest and safest qualify for insurance discounts with the insurers who embrace the system. The informational blurb for this app states that it has an extensive database of current applicable speed limits in the UK. I assume that info is held at Drivescore central, and the app communicates with it at intervals. 

4
Technology & Information / Re: T-minus 10 hours - Artemis Mission to Moon
« on: December 02, 2022, 09:32:25 AM »
This is artwork. Rockets fly several thousand miles then drop in the ocean outta sight.

The Russians launched from Baikonour, in Kazakhstan.  Which ocean?  C'mon, now, look at the map of Asia. Which ocean?

Also, when you map out an orthographic view of a rocket going upward and away from the launch site, it does not matter whether you map it against a flat earth or globe. Either way, as the rocket climbs and moves further away, the net result in both cases is that it appears to drop, by moving lower in the observer's field of view. Do the maths on it, and you'll see. Wanna see mine?

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does the Sun appear larger in the morning?
« on: November 30, 2022, 10:40:27 AM »
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 ...?

6
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.

7
... 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.

8
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.


EDIT

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.

9
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

10
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?

11
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.


12
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.

13
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.

14
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?

15
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.


16
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.

17
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.

18
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?

 
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.
 


19
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.

20
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;





----------------------------------------------------------------




 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133  Next >