### 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 - Tau

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE what are meteors
« on: August 26, 2017, 08:59:43 PM »
In AWT, meteors are actually solidified chunks that have fallen off the bottom of the Earth and been thrown up into the whirlpool. Some meteors are able to find stable orbits within the whirlpool, while some occasionally fall down to the surface. By this process, the Earth continually renews itself.

How would you explain the predictable nature of meteor showers?

The Wind operates in complicated, but ultimately predictable patterns.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 26, 2017, 05:29:24 PM »
Tau,

Furthermore, would the effects of Aether be mathematically reducible to 0 in the event that fight times and speeds were repeatable on different dates within the aforementioned margins of error?  As an example, if Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- acceleration due to Aether (A) we could postulate that the distance is a known value within a confidence interval provided that speeds and times were repeated.

On shorter distance flights within a single continent, distance is a known value measured by physical measuring devices that do not rely on a globed earth assumption so we could take 2 different non stop flights between cities within say Australia on different dates and solve for the variable Aether as such: +/- A = (Speed*Time)/Distance.  This would create both an upper and lower bound for margin of error due to the variable Aetherial Wind.

Would this be an acceptable methodology of accounting for the missing variable in my first series of equations?

Thank You

CriticalThinker

I would caution you against assuming that measuring devices like sonar and radar don't take the Earth's shape into account. These devices need to be calibrated, after all. If one calibrates them with the assumption that the Earth is round, but using data from a flat Earth, then one has effectively created a device which converts flat Earth data into round Earth data.

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 26, 2017, 05:26:24 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 26, 2017, 04:43:17 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 26, 2017, 04:31:35 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?

6
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Solar Eclipse
« on: August 26, 2017, 04:18:58 PM »
What are you talking about, "harmful intent"?  I clearly and repeatedly said it was dangerous to look at the eclipse unprotected.  The fact that I don't agree with you about an eclipse being somehow super extra ultra dangerous, that's not the same as dismissing the very real danger.

it's always dangerous...I certainly hope nobody did what (Jai_mav) suggest.  I may argue and fight with you FE types, but that doesn't mean I actually bear you any ill will.  I definitely wouldn't wish blindness on any of you.

If you practice sungazing regularly, the eclipse won't do nothing to your vision
Kids, Hmmm is either a troll or an idiot.  Please do not take his/her words seriously.

Tell you what, I'll make it plain in case somebody else misunderstood me as Pete has:
Do not EVER, under ANY circumstances, look at the sun without the protection of an approved solar filter.

During an eclipse, not during an eclipse, during an ISS or Mercury or Venus transit, during high or low sunspot activity, during whatever else might be going on.

It will ALWAYS be dangerous, it will NEVER be safe, DON'T DO IT!

Got it Pete?

Similarly, it is absolutely vital that one avoid looking directly at the moon. In fact, excessive exposure to lunar radiation is known to cause irreparable internal organ damage.

7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 26, 2017, 04:06:51 PM »
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed

I am obsessed with following the rules of the scientific method and adhering to polite standards of logical debate, thank you for noticing.

I believe that we keep bringing back up the point of geometry because it proves that the surface of the earth can't be planar through mathematics.  Tom has attempted to steer the attention away from this by using GPS accuracy as a red herring and so far refuses to debate on the rest of the proofs provided.

To briefly summarize my first post.

I established that:

1. That airline flight times are measured accurately with standardized timepieces that do not assume a globed or flat earth.
2. That flight speed can be measured accurately relative to ground speed using Doppler shift radar which also does not assume a globed or flat earth.
3. That speed is defined as Distance/Time and therefore using flight times and speeds we could algebraically solve for distance in under a 5% margin of error without assuming a flat or globed earth.
4. That the distances between the 4 cities used in the initial geometry proof are valid as aircraft speeds are tracked by both GPS and Radar which fits the initial stipulation that all data points had to be valid without the assumption of latitude and longitude accuracy.

Doppler shift radar is accurate within 1% margin of error in measuring flight speed over both short and long distance.

At this point, unless there is a way to disprove the existence of time, distance or speed then we have met all of Tom Bishop's demands and would like him to address it fully.  It is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.  It must be either concave or convex and based on my casual observance, it's not concave.

GPS accuracy, quite frankly, doesn't matter in this proof.  It doesn't invalidate the other device used to track flight speed.

Tom, Tsunami and any other flat earth believers are welcomed and encouraged to engage me in any portion of my hypothesis and research other than GPS accuracy.  I have politely and faithfully met all of the other demands placed upon this proof.  It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Dear CriticalThinker,

Thank you for your kind response. I'd be happy to address your initial points if you'd like.

Imagine, if you will, a great whirlpool. This whirlpool has a diameter the same as, or perhaps even larger than, that of the our Plane. Within this whirlpool float the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets (alongside other cosmic phenomena). Now, such a large whirlpool does not work as simply as the one in your sink. You can think of it more like the storms and layers of Jupiter. At various places along its width, it can be faster or slower and even change direction. All of this stems from the unique properties of aether and the fact that the Earth is spinning relative to the whirlwind.

Now, imagine (for the sake of analogy) that you are a scuba diver deep beneath Charybdis. You would feel the pulling and pushing of the monstrous whirlpool above you, no matter how deep you went, correct? Similarly, on Earth we feel a shadow of the aethric whirlpool. In effect this works similarly to the theorized jet stream of RET, except that depending on one's position it can provide acceleration in either direction. This is what you fail to account for in your calculations.

Sincerely,
Tau

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 26, 2017, 03:41:08 PM »

You people are obsessed

Not really.  What this place provides is a landscape full of thought exercises.   It lets people dust off skills that in many cases are long unused, geometry is an example of that in my case.   It also keeps you thinking about ways to get around the silly roadblocks that are thrown up.

The distance threads are the best, most easily proven (math does not lie) and why most FE'ers have stayed away.  The really silly NASA conspiracies, bible quotes, ships and the horizon, etc. are barely worth reading but are much easier for the FE'ers to argue.

Bottom line is no one is going to change anybody's mind here but in my opinion, fanatical minds are a fascinating study.

When you've been here longer, you'll start to realize that every question has been asked before. It's very uncommon for someone to start a thread in the upper fora that we can't at least predict the first couple pages of. You learn to pick your battles. I try to avoid conspiracy threads- I find them tedious. I'd imagine Tom feels similarly about geometry threads (and I can't blame him).

As for no one changing anyone's mind, it's not like we were all raised as FE'ers. People get converted sometimes. I was converted. It's what we live for on these fora.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS Video of Hurricane Harvey
« on: August 26, 2017, 03:11:03 PM »
Obviously NASA is not a hoax. This is really nasty suggestion: that millions of peeps have spent their life-work on the most massive coverup in history. Poppycock.
==
However, if you INSIST we not use satellite imagery of Hurricane Harvey then you must consider this (as has been suggested many times in these forums before me) - the CORIOLUS EFFECT. This 'force' causes cyclones (hurricanes and tornados + all 'low pressure' weather systems) to rotate COUNTER CLOCKWISE in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This is well observed, as it is now being observed in Texas. No 'natural' force on a flat and stationary earth can explain this. On globe spinning earth the effect is predicted, and observed exactly as predicted.
NOTE: this can be seen in microcosm in your own bathtub - if you put water in...allow to come to complete calm conditions, pull plug and watch: water will drain in counter-clockwise motion north of equator (further north = stronger effect). Google 'Coriolus effect' and do some reading.

You should probably read the FAQ and the Wiki. The Earth is not stationary; instead, in most models (John Davis has different ideas, but he's still running the other society like a doomed sailor) the Earth accelerates upward at 9.81 m/s/s. This creates an effect analogous to gravity, and in AWT is also responsible for coriolis effect.

10
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 26, 2017, 03:03:10 PM »
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 26, 2017, 06:03:02 AM »
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate. We have already seen that multiple devices gave out wildly different values for the runners on a small track.

Modern commercial GPS units are limited (deliberately, in fact) to about 10' of precision.   On something as small as a running track, an error of 10 feet is a hell of a lot.  On something like a long haul airline flight, an error of 10 feet is  negligible.

So (as usual) your complete inability to work out even the most basic concepts and research the background to the things you say leads you astray.

You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS Video of Hurricane Harvey
« on: August 26, 2017, 04:42:04 AM »
It's amazing what they can do with special effects, isn't it?

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE what are meteors
« on: August 26, 2017, 04:35:53 AM »
In AWT, meteors are actually solidified chunks that have fallen off the bottom of the Earth and been thrown up into the whirlpool. Some meteors are able to find stable orbits within the whirlpool, while some occasionally fall down to the surface. By this process, the Earth continually renews itself.

14
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth
« on: August 26, 2017, 04:27:15 AM »
Yeah, no one knows for sure. It's hard to dig down there, and a fundamental tenant of Zeteticism is confirmation via direct observation. That said, we can speculate!

In AW theory, the aethric wind's push against the Earth would theoretically provide sufficient energy to melt the bottom of our Plane. Therefore, in this model the bottom of the Earth would probably be quite similar to the outer core in RET. This seems to be supported by available evidence, since there appears to be some mysterious heat source deep inside the Earth that is not fully explained by radioactive decay.

Looking past that (ignoring the fact that the Wind would melt your face off), you'd most likely see an abyss that stretches forever. That's not necessarily true; for all we know, there's a second Earth directly below us that thinks we're some kind of celestial ceiling. Or turtles. I've always been a fan of the turtle theory.

I believe there are some sects of FET who believe that Australia is actually on the other side of the plane (which they use as a probably racist explanation for the physical characteristics of Aboriginal peoples and the apparent mass psychosis that characterizes modern Australian society and governance).

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Alternative maps problems.
« on: August 24, 2017, 10:39:34 PM »
Polaris is simply very far away. Moving around on the plane of the Earth and expecting to see significant movement in Polaris is like driving to the other side of town and expecting the Sun to go down.

That can't be (and it doesn't help).   Polaris is vertically overhead at the North Pole...a well established fact.  In FET, it can't be *much* higher than the Sun because it has to set over the horizon at the equator (you can't see it south of the equator).

So we can deduce that Polaris is vertically above the pole and a little more than 3000 miles above the earth.

But it actually doesn't matter where you claim it to be.   If light travels in straight lines then the lines of longitude must be straight.

Sunset (and by extension, starset) is a fairly complicated phenomenon, at least in AW theory (of which I am a proponent). It's not necessarily appropriate to assume that it will work intuitively.

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Alternative maps problems.
« on: August 24, 2017, 07:50:45 AM »
Polaris is simply very far away. Moving around on the plane of the Earth and expecting to see significant movement in Polaris is like driving to the other side of town and expecting the Sun to go down.

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stop using God as your reasoning for believing in FE. God isn't real.
« on: August 24, 2017, 04:29:04 AM »
You and your fellow followers spend hours wasting your time on this site to prove what?

Your weapons are meaningless, we have the armor of GOD, the shields of the Spirit and breastplates of righteousness. We can't die, were promised eternal life not damnation. Pretty sweet eh?

To prove that you guys are completely duped and that you can't defend your views from even the most base level scrutiny.

Why can't you just answer for the contradiction I mentioned? I wouldn't have to keep commenting if you would just respond.

Congratulations, you did in a sentence what philosophers and theologians have been struggling with for thousands of years. You should be receiving your Nobel in the mail any day now

Look man, I'm not a religious person either, but theodicy isn't exactly a new concept. There are dozens of explanations for why suffering exists, which are fully consistent with various religious beliefs. Also, if you want to have a religious discussion then start a thread in PRAS. This board is for serious discussion of the finer points of Flat Earth Theory.
(not a moderator) (anymore)

18
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Celestial Navigation - How can it work on a flat earth?
« on: August 24, 2017, 04:22:55 AM »
In Flat Earth Theory, the stars are simply much closer than they are in globularist thought.

19
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A Commentary on Religion and its Societal Implications
« on: August 29, 2015, 10:51:01 PM »
There is a man named Andrew who went to hell and saw his aborted kids in hell. Aborted grow up in hell for 33 and a half years. So, don't abort your kids. Contraceptives = early abortion

Orthodox Church doesn't change its doctrines.
They remained the same for 2000 years.
Forgive me.﻿

If God chooses to send aborted babies to hell, that's God's fault. Not ours. Don't blame us for God's war crimes.

20
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« on: August 27, 2015, 03:43:38 AM »
If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't
This article explicitly states that some state governments do do that. Seems like the federal government has got its shit together, but some states don't, and neither do you. What did you think you'd accomplish by posting an article that directly dismisses your claim?

I think state funding is a different issue from federal funding. The whole point of states is to represent a smaller subset of the population, to better suit their needs and wants. If the population of a state, in general, doesn't mind funding abortion why is it a problem?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39  Next >